Andy Worthington's Blog, page 71

Libyan Who Abandoned Habeas Corpus Petition, Citing Its “Futility,” Asks Review Board to Approve His Release from Guantánamo

Last week, a Libyan prisoner at Guantánamo, Ismail Ali Faraj al-Bakush (aka Ismael al-Bakush), who is 48 years old, became the 53rd prisoner to face a Periodic Review Board. The PRBs were set up in 2003 to review the cases of prisoners who had not already been approved for release, or were not facing trials, and to date 29 men have been approved for release, while 13 have had their ongoing imprisonment upheld.

This is a 69% success rate for the prisoners, which is remarkable — and remarkably damaging for the credibility of the Obama administration — because the majority of these men were described, by the high-level, inter-agency Guantánamo Review Task Force that President Obama set up shortly after taking office in January 2009, as “too dangerous to release,” when the reality has not borne out that caution. Others were recommended for prosecution, until the basis for prosecutions in Guantánamo’s military commission trial system largely collapsed after a series of devastating appeals court rulings, confirming that the war crimes being tried were illegitimate, having been invented by Congress.

Ismail al-Bakush is one of 41 men eligible for the PRBs who was initially regarded as “too dangerous to release,” even though the task force acknowledged that insufficient evidence existed against any of these men to put them on trial. 23 others were initially recommended for prosecution, and just eleven men are still awaiting reviews, while 12 others (including al-Bakush) are awaiting the results of their reviews. See my definitive Periodic Review Board list on the Close Guantánamo website for further information.

Little has been heard from al-Bakush during his almost 14 years in Guantánamo. Seized in Lahore in April 2002, he arrived in Cuba four months later. In an article in October 2010, I wrote the following about him:

Apparently a former mujahid in the dying days of Afghanistan’s Communist regime, al-Bakush reportedly stated that he returned to Afghanistan “to help the Taliban fight the Northern Alliance,” and the US authorities allege that he “and his group would fight sporadically whenever there was a fight between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance.” However, al-Bakush also provided a detailed explanation for doing so, stating that “the reason he decided to help fight with the Taliban was because he lived in Afghanistan both prior to Taliban control and after Taliban control. Prior to Taliban control there were robberies, thefts, and fights between groups. After the Taliban took over the area became safe.”

Beyond these claims, there was nothing to indicate that he took up arms against the United States, or had any desire to do so. He stated that he “had never met bin Laden,” said that “at no time did he conduct any operations against the American Forces,” and, moreover, “said he had no feelings towards the United States and considered the United States like any other country.” “His main concern,” he explained, “is Libya and the overthrow of [Colonel] Gaddafi.” Much of the evidence against Bakush consisted of allegations about his involvement with Libyan groups opposed to the Gaddafi regime, and the question of Bakush’s continued detention, therefore, seems, as with other Libyans held in Guantánamo, to hinge on whether it is acceptable to hold dissidents opposed to a regime that, until the “War on Terror” began, was regarded as a terrorist dictatorship by the very government that has been holding Bakush for the last eight and a half years.

Nevertheless, in its unclassified summary for al-Bakush’s PRB, the US government sought to emphasize connections, or alleged connections between the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an exiled organization dedicated to the overthrow of Col. Gaddafi, and al-Qaeda. The summary claimed he was and LIFG “explosives expert who trained al-Qa’ida members and probably associated with and provided operational support to key al-Qa’ida figures.” That use of the word “probably” suggests doubt, of course, and it is also worth noting that al-Bakush himself “has consistently denied his close association with al-Qa’ida and expertise with explosives, and he has presented himself to US interrogators as a low-level fighter.”

Running through his history, the summary stated — again with doubts — that he “probably was in Afghanistan from 1991-1994 and again starting in 1998,” and that, as an LIFG member, “he almost certainly plotted to kill Libyan leader Moammar Qadhafi.”

The summary also noted how, after his alleged explosives training, given “to LIFG and al-Qa’ida operatives, including some who later conducted attacks in Kuwait and Morocco,” he “fled in early 2002 to Pakistan, where he probably helped al-Qa’ ida and LIFG members plan external operations and communicated regularly with prominent al-Qa’ida figures, including possibly Abu Zubaydah (GZ-10016) and probably senior al-Qa’ida leader Abu Faraj al-Libi (LY-10017).” Note, again, the conditionals — “probably,” twice, and even less convincingly, “possibly,” when discussing an alleged relationship with “high-value detainee” Abu Zubaydah.

Moving on to Guantánamo, the summary noted that he “has been compliant but uncooperative during his detention … providing little information of value while outlasting a series of interrogators,” and adding, “He attended interviews regularly until September 2015 but has avoided discussing his ties to al-Qa’ida, which suggests that he wishes to pass his detention in relative comfort and anonymity, confident that the extent of his extremist activity remains unknown to US officials.” That seems to me to be a huge leap on the part of those compiling the summary, but in practical terms, in his PRB, al-Bakush would be required to acknowledge and respond to allegations against him to have a chance of being approved for release.

The summary also noted that al-Bakush “has told interrogators that he is not interested in fighting again, but has not renounced extremism.” This should count against him, but the “extremism” is not directed at the US. Instead, it was noted that he “has expressed frustration over the current civil war in Libya, blaming Egypt and claiming General Haftar is a new dictator like Qadhafi, suggesting he may be motivated to violence if he returned to Libya” — although that would not happen, because Congress has banned the release of prisoners to Libya.

More worryingly, the summary notes that al-Bakush “has not expressed a clear plan for how he would support himself if he left Guantánamo Bay, and he probably would struggle to acclimate to civilian life without substantial assistance.” This is worrying, because being able to demonstrate a convincing plan for a peaceful life after Guantánamo is a prerequisite for a review board recommending release. Also troubling is a claim that “[e]xtremist groups probably would find his experience as an explosives and electronics expert and trainer for LIFG valuable,” and it was also claimed that al-Bakush “has ties to several prominent extremists in Libya.”

Below, I’m cross-posting the opening statement made by al-Bakush’s personal representative (a military officer appointed to help him prepare for his PRB), who spoke about how he has become “more opened minded, tolerant and accepting to others,” and how his mother would be able to help support him financially if he were to be released.

He did not appear to have an attorney for his PRB, and below I’m posting excerpts from an interview with his Minneapolis-based attorney, Matthew Melewski, back in 2013, conducted by a friend of mine, the Brooklyn-based blogger The Talking Dog, when Melewski explained that al-Bakush had become so disillusioned with the situation at Guantánamo that he had cut off contact with him. I have not yet been able to find out if that is still the case, although I suspect that it is.

Periodic Review Board Initial Hearing, 14 Jul 2016

Isma’il Ali Faraj Al-Bakush, ISN 708

Personal Representative Opening Statement

Members of the Board, I am the Personal Representative for Isma’il Ali Faraj al-Bakush, ISN 708. I will be presenting this case this morning. First off, let me start by stating that lsma’il is pleased to have the opportunity to have his case heard, to tell his story and to answer your questions in detail. Additionally, Isma’il has been cooperative and receptive while meeting with me.

As a result of our meetings, I can surely say that Isma’il is eager and excited to begin a new chapter in his life. lsma’il wishes only to move forward and to put the past behind him. As an example, Isma’il has learned to be more opened minded, tolerant and accepting to others while living in a communal living setting. lsma’il believes that his communal living arrangement allows him more opportunities to gain exposure for himself to other detainees’ cultural and religious backgrounds. As a result, lsma’il now respects and values the opinions of others from various cultural backgrounds.

lsma’il has been compliant and only wishes all others well. He enjoys the company of others and would not jeopardize the opportunities that this brings to share life experiences with other detainees. lsma’il routinely partakes in gatherings where he and others are able to share stories of their childhood.

Unfortunately, I was not able to contact his family, but understand from our discussions that his mother has properties that would enable her to offer Isma’il financial support. His cousin is employed and is also willing to help lsma’il financially.

lsma’il enjoys watching and playing many sports such as soccer and swimming. While at Guantánamo Bay, Isma’il has taken classes in health and life skills classes. Isma’il also enjoys cooking for others and as a result, lsma’il would like to work in the restaurant industry. Isma’il looks forward to having his own family someday. He particularly looks forward to raising children of his own.

I am confident that lsma’il’s desire to pursue a peaceful and productive life is sincere. His demeanor is one of an individual that has learned from his mistakes and actions of the past. He is willing to concentrate on a bright and meaningful future. While Isma’il prefers to live in an Arabic speaking country, he is willing to relocate to a country that provides him opportunities for a successful future. lsma’il is willing to participate in a rehabilitation or reintegration program as well.

lsma’il and I appreciate your time in this matter and your consideration for a transfer recommendation.

Excerpts from Matthew Melewski’s interview with The Talking Dog

In his interview, Matthew Melewski explained how al-Bakush had become “hopeless,” adding, “Like most of the detainees, he understands the reality of the situation far better than most Americans. He realized long ago that if he ever got out of GTMO alive, it would be the result of some political calculation, not a legal determination. And certainly not the consequence of any sense of fairness or justice. By the time I first met Ismael, he had been imprisoned without charge for the better part of a decade. Instilling hope into a situation like that is nearly impossible, and what little hope might have remained in that prison, Obama has now extinguished. That is what we are seeing with the most recent hunger strike.”

Dealing with the LIFG claims, Melewski cut through many of the US claims by stating that it was ironic that al-Bakush was “ostensibly being held for being a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group,” because it was “an organization that just played a central role in the US-supported overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.” As Melewski noted, “If he wasn’t in GTMO, he’d be our ally.”

Melewski also explained how al-Bakush had given up on his habeas corpus petition. “The last time I saw Ismael,” he said, “he asked me and my co-counsel to dismiss his habeas case. He understood before we got there what had happened – the D.C. Circuit determined that the government of the United States can imprison someone indefinitely so long as they present a piece of paper that says “he meets the definition of bad guy under the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force],’ even if it doesn’t identify any sources or authors.”

Melewski was referring to rulings taken by the D.C. Circuit Court, in 2010-11, ordering District Court judges to treat everything the government presented as evidence as presumptively accurate, which had the effect of gutting habeas corpus of all meaning for the Guantánamo prisoners, who, between 2008 and 2010, had actually won dozens of their cases, and had had their releases ordered by US judges.

Since the D.C. Circuit Court changed the rules, not a single prisoner has had his release granted by the courts. As Melewski put it, “Ismael said forget it, what’s the point? I tried to argue with him. But he was right. We voluntarily dismissed his case a few months ago, citing futility.”

Asked when he had last seen al-Bakush, Melewski explained, “I haven’t seen Ismael in over a year. And he won’t return my letters any more. He has given up. And it gets harder the more time passes. He becomes more depressed. I struggle to be encouraging. By sheer attrition and retirement, five attorneys representing him have left since I started working on his case in 2008.”

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer, film-maker and singer-songwriter (the lead singer and main songwriter for the London-based band The Four Fathers, whose debut album ‘Love and War’ and EP ‘Fighting Injustice’ are available here to download or on CD via Bandcamp). He is the co-founder of the Close Guantánamo campaign (and the Countdown to Close Guantánamo initiative, launched in January 2016), the co-director of We Stand With Shaker, which called for the release from Guantánamo of Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in the prison (finally freed on October 30, 2015), and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by the University of Chicago Press in the US, and available from Amazon, including a Kindle edition — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here — or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and The Complete Guantánamo Files, an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the Close Guantánamo campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

Penitent Pakistani Seeks Release from Guantánamo, as Two Yemenis and a Moroccan are Approved for Release and an Algerian’s Request is Denied

On July 7, a Periodic Review Board took place for Abdul Rahim Ghulam Rabbani (also identified for the PRB as Abdul Rabbani Abu Rahmah), a Pakistani prisoner at Guantánamo (born in Saudi Arabia) who was seized in Karachi, Pakistan on September 9, 2002 and held and tortured in CIA “black sites” for two years, before arriving at Guantánamo with nine other allegedly “medium-value detainees” in September 2004. He was seized with his younger brother, Ahmad (aka Mohammed), who is awaiting a date for his PRB, and who, last year, sought assistance from the Pakistani government in a submission to the Pakistani courts.

The PRBs were set up in 2013 to review the cases of all the men not already approved for release or facing trials. These men were described by the government task force that reviewed their cases in 2009 as “too dangerous to release,” despite a lack of evidence against them, or were recommended for prosecution, until the basis for prosecution largely collapsed. The PRBs have been functioning like parole boards, with the men in question — 64 in total — having to establish, to the satisfaction of the board members, made up of representatives of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice and Homeland Security, as well as the office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that they show remorse for their previous actions, that they bear no ill-will towards the US, that they have no associations with anyone regarded as being involved in terrorism, and that they have plans in place for their life after Guantánamo, preferably with the support of family members.

Around the time of Abdul Rahim Ghulam Rabbani’s PRB, which is discussed at length below, four decisions were also taken relating to prisoners whose reviews had already taken place, when three men were approved for release, and one had his request to be released turned down. These decisions meant that, of the 52 prisoners whose cases had been reviewed, 27 have been approved for release, 13 have had their ongoing imprisonment recommended, and 12 decisions have yet to be made. 11 more reviews have yet to take place (and one took place last week, which I’ll be writing about soon). See here for my definitive Periodic Review Board list on the website of the Close Guantánamo campaign that I co-founded with the US attorney Tom Wilner, and that I have been running since 2012.

Four recent decisions — three recommendations for release and one for ongoing detention

On July 6, Muhammed Rajab Sadiq Abu Ghanim (ISN 44), a Yemeni reviewed on May 17, was approved for release. I wrote about his review in an article entitled, Periodic Review Board at Guantánamo for Yemeni Subjected to Long-Term Sleep Deprivation in Prison’s Early Years.

Decisions by the review boards must be unanimous, with the board members starting that, by consensus, they have “determined that continued law of war detention of the detainee does not remain necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.”

In the final determination in Ghanim’s case, the board members “considered [his] improved behavior in detention since mid-2013, [his] relative forthrightness with the Board regarding his activities prior to detention, to include fighting in Afghanistan with the Taliban, and [his] comprehension of and remorse for the effects of his actions on others.” The board members “also noted [his] candor and detail provided … regarding his change in mindset while in detention, [his] efforts to expose himself to other cultures while in detention, and [his] decision to take advantage of educational opportunities while in detention.”

In conclusion, the board recommended “transfer to preferably a Gulf country with reintegration support, the capacity to implement robust security measures, and the ability to keep the detainee productively engaged.”

On July 11, two more prisoners were approved for release. The first, Shawqi Awad Balzuhair (ISN 838), another Yemeni, had his case reviewed on May 31, as I wrote about here. He is one of six men initially regarded as members of an al-Qaeda cell in Karachi, but the government eventually walked back from that claim. Two of the six have already been recommended for release, and three others are awaiting the results of their reviews. In their final determination, the board members stated that they had “considered that [his] degree of involvement and significance in extremist activities has been reassessed to be that of a low-level fighter,” and had “also noted [his] lack of expression of support for extremist ideologies, [his] compliance record at Guantánamo, and [his] lack of ongoing extremist ties.”

The third man to be recommended for release was Abdul Latif Nasir (ISN 244), the last Moroccan in the prison, whose review took place on June 7, which I wrote about here. in their final determination, the board members noted that, although they had determined that continued law of war detention was no longer necessary, they also recognized that he “presents some level of threat in light of his past activities, skills, and associations,” although they also “found that in light of the factors and conditions of transfer identified below, the threat [he] presents can be adequately mitigated.” Those conditions, essentially, involved a recommendation for “transfer only to Morocco.”

The board members also noted that they had “considered [his] candid responses to the Board’s questions regarding his reasons for going to Afghanistan and activities while there,” and “also noted that [he] has multiple avenues for support upon transfer, to include a well-established family with a willingness and ability to provide him with housing, realistic employment opportunities, and economic support.” Finally, the board members noted that they “considered [his] renunciation of violence, that [he] has committed a low number of disciplinary infractions while in detention, [his] efforts to educate himself while at Guantánamo through classes and self-study, and that [he] has had no contact with individuals involved in terrorism-related activities outside of Guantánamo.”

The man whose detention was upheld was Saeed Bakhouche (ISN 685), an Algerian seized in a house raid in Faisalabad, Pakistan in March 2002 with the alleged “high-value detainee” Abu Zubaydah. I wrote about his case at the time of his review, on May 24, when I noted the US authorities’ longstanding problems identifying who he is, in an article entitled, The Man They Don’t Know: Saeed Bakhouche, an Algerian, Faces a Periodic Review Board at Guantánamo.

Nevertheless, Bakhouche, also identified as Abdel Razak Ali or Said Bakush, failed to ask his lawyer to attend his review, even though the presence of and contributions of the prisoners’ lawyers often help to frame their responses in a way that is helpful to the board members, and he clearly failed to make a good impression. In their final determination, the board members, having stated that, by consensus, they had “determined that continued law of war detention of the detainee remains necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States,” explained that they had “considered [his] elevated threat profile as evidenced by his prior roles in Afghanistan and prior associations, [his] insistence that he’s had no change in mindset, insufficient information presented to assess [his] intent, and contradictory and implausible Information provided by [him] regarding his travel to Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as his activities while there.” The board members also noted that “there was no indication of any support network to help [him] upon his transfer and uncertainty as to whether [he] can implement his plans for the future.”

The board members encourages him “to be open and candid” in future communications with the board. They also stated that they would welcome “information on family or other social support available“ to him, and “look[ed] forward to reviewing [his] file in six months. Specifically, the board members noted that they were “interested in receiving information from the Government of Algeria regarding its plans for him upon repatriation and reintegration support it could provide.”

Abdul Rahim Ghulam Rabbani’s Periodic Review Board

At his Periodic Review Board on June 7, Abdul Rahim Ghulam Rabbani expressed profound regrets for his past activities, which I discuss below, as well as posting transcripts of statements made by his legal and military representatives, who added important information not covered by the US authorities — in particular, his limited education and limited educational abilities, and his profound sense of remorse at having become involved with al-Qaeda, which he did only to support his family. I hope that this augurs well for the result of his review, as it seems clear to me that there is no reason for him to continue to be held.

In a brief description of him at his review, Courthouse News explained how he “could be seen on the monitor at the Pentagon, which aired the hearing via closed-circuit from Guantánamo, with a long, dark beard and wearing a long-sleeved white shirt and a white prayer hat.”

In my book The Guantánamo Files, published in 2007, I explained how, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, the elder brother was “an ‘al-Qaeda member who worked closely with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks] in Karachi, and assisted many of the 9/11 hijackers,’ specifically by providing them with a safe house in 2000, after their training in Afghanistan and before they flew out to the United States.”

I added that these allegations “were reiterated in the brothers’ tribunals at Guantánamo: Mohammed was presented as a junior partner, accused of being ‘a senior al-Qaeda operative’, who knew Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and met Osama bin Laden on six or seven occasions, and who also moved mujahideen between Afghanistan and Pakistan and ran ‘an al-Qaeda guest house’ with his brother, whereas Abdul Rahim was presented as a full-blown member of al-Qaeda, who acted as a facilitator for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for three years, and was ‘a well-known Karachi-based al-Qaeda facilitator who had transported many al-Qaeda members from safe houses to the Karachi apartment.’”

It was also alleged that “he ‘operated or resided at six al-Qaeda safe houses in Karachi with a senior al-Qaeda lieutenant,’ and that he was a member of an al-Qaeda cell planning car bomb attacks against US forces.” I also added, in a passage that I still find significant, “While there seems little doubt that the two men ran a safe house in Karachi, a Pakistani intelligence official cast doubt on the extent of their involvement with terrorism in October 2006. Speaking about the Pakistani prisoners in Guantánamo, he mentioned the brothers, saying, ‘Although they have served for Khalid Sheikh as his employees, they were not linked with al-Qaeda.’”

In its unclassified summary for the PRB, the US government contradicted the Pakistani intelligence official’s assessment, describing Rabbani (ISN 1460), who is 46 or 47 years old, as “an al-Qa’ ida facilitator who worked directly for al-Qa’ida external operations chief Khalid Shaykh Muhammad (KU-I 0024) from around 1999 until his arrest in September 2002,” whose “primary role was to run al-Qa’ida safehouses in Karachi, Pakistan, and to assist Muhammad in transporting and housing al-Qa’ ida fighters, equipment, documents, and money.” After 9/11, the summary continued, he “played a prominent role in moving fighters from Afghanistan to Pakistan and housed several key al-Qa’ida figures in Karachi, including the al-Qa’ida media committee.”

The summary also suggested that “[h]is access to Muhammad and other senior al-Qa’ida members probably positioned [him] to play a support role in al-Qa’ida operations, including 9/11, Karachi-based attack plotting, and possibly the al-Qa’ida anthrax program, although we judge that [he] most likely did not have specific insight into al-Qa’ida operational plans.” This certainly seems to exaggerate Rabbani’s role, as I find it inconceivable that he would have been informed in advance of the 9/11 attacks, and the notion that he knew anything about an anthrax plot is also extremely tenuous, as is revealed by the authorities’ use of the word “possibly.” Furthermore, his representatives’ explanation of his limited education, and his inability to understand complex issues (as discussed below) decisively add to the notion that the US government’s claims bear no relation to the reality of Mr. Rabbani’s position as a lowly provider of transport and accommodation for al-Qaeda.

The summary, however, also ran through his involvement with al-Qaeda, claiming that his “extremist activity began around late 1998 when his brother, Mohammed Ahmed Ghulam Rabbani (PK-1461), recruited him to go to Afghanistan,” and adding that he “traveled from Karachi, Pakistan, to Afghanistan and attended Khaldan camp near Khowst for basic weapons training but was kicked out after a short period for smoking.”

After this ignominious start, which, it seems to me, only serves to reveals a man who lacked commitment to any militant causes (and inadvertantly confirming, as his lawyers state below, that he only became involved with al-Qaeda for money), the summary noted that he “returned to Karachi, where he first met Muhammad and started his work as a facilitator,” adding, “He started out as a cook in Karachi-based safehouses, transported fighters between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and moved equipment for Muhammad. As a part of his duties before 9/11, [he] frequently acquired equipment for the al-Qa’ida media committee, which was then housed in Kandahar, Afghanistan.”

Turning to his time at Guantánamo, the summary noted that he “has been mostly compliant with the guard force,” which is helpful for prisoners seeking release, but that he “is extremely vocal about camp dynamics and very sensitive to changes in his living situation.” On intelligence, it was stated that he “has exhibited varying levels of cooperation with interrogators and provided most information of value shortly after his arrest in September 2002,” and that he “gave insights into his experience as a facilitator and his interactions with senior al-Qa’ida members.”

It was also stated that he “has not admitted to being aware of al-Qa’ida attack plotting details, either because he really was ignorant of them or because he is attempting to mask his involvement in anything beyond facilitation activities.” As mentioned above, I strongly suspect that the former explanation rather than the latter is accurate, as al-Qaeda leaders had no reason to include a Pakistani facilitator in their plans.

Moving on to considerations of his eligibility for release, the summary noted that comments he has made “suggest anti-American sentiment, most likely due to his extended detainment, and that he may have an extremist mindset.” In contrast, however, and much more significantly, to my mind, it was noted that he “has indicated that he has non-extremist plans post-detention, including reuniting with his wife and sons and getting a job, such as a taxi driver or working in a shop.”

It was also noted that, although he “had access to a broad network of terrorist contacts, given his close association with Muhammad and his experience as an al-Qa’ida facilitator, many of his contacts have been detained or killed.” It was also noted, significantly, that he “has had no known contact with at-large terrorists during his time in detention,” although the US authorities inferred from this that it made it “difficult to assess if [he] would have a clear avenue for reengagement after release.” It was also noted — again, with significance — that his “immediate family has no known ties to terrorism.”

In contrast, as noted briefly above, Rabbani’s personal representatives (military officers assigned to help prisoners prepare for their PRBs) and his attorney, Agnieszka Fryszman, provided a far more sympathetic portrait of Rabbani as “a simple man,” who is “not well educated,” and who, moreover, is thoroughly remorseful for his actions assisting al-Qaeda members, which he did solely to support his family. As Fryszman stated, he “has never been an ideologue or jihadist,” and, in ten years of meeting with him, “he has never once — not even a single time — expressed any anger or animus towards the United States or towards any American citizen.” It was also noted that he has been well-behaved at Guantánamo, that “he sweeps up and cleans his block,” and that he “stays away from conflict,” and also that there is a plan for his release co-ordinated with his very supportive family members, either in Pakistan or in Saudi Arabia.

The opening statements are below:

Periodic Review Board Initial Hearing, 7 July 2016

Abdul Rabbani Abu Rahmah, ISN 1460

Personal Representative Opening Statement

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the Board. We are the Personal Representatives (PRs) for ISN 1460, Mr. Abdul Rahim Mawlana Ghulam Rabbani, and will be assisting Mr. Rabbani with his case this morning.

Abdul Rahim has maintained a positive attitude and cooperated in the Periodic Review process since his initial notification and has participated in all scheduled meetings. We have been surprised by his candid answers to all of our questions. He does not paint a rosy picture of his past and has told us of specific past decisions and actions that resulted in legal issues. He strikes us as a simple person with minimal education. Due to his inability to read or write well, a fellow detainee agreed to write his statement for him. Because of this, we believe his personal statement may not appear as open or candid, but we believe Abdul Rahim’s responses to Board questions may provide more insight into his pre-detention activities. While he does have some difficulty understanding abstract questions, he mentioned he will do his best to answer your questions completely.

Though he completed elementary school, he was unable to pursue more formal education. To support himself, he found work driving taxis, leading tours, coached Arkan Sport Football Club, a Karachi minor league soccer team, as well as buying and selling merchandise as a young adult. These low-income positions, however, did not sustain his wife and children in the late 1990s, so Abdul Rahim began working for Al Qaida. He located housing and arranged transportation for their fighters to provide for his family prior to his capture and detention. At the time, he did not fully understand the effects of his actions and prioritized family support, care, and feeding. Abdul Rahim quickly realized during his time in Guantánamo, though, that Al Qaida is a terrorist organization and that it was wrong to aid their fighters as a housing and transportation facilitator.

Abdul Rahim often thinks of reuniting with and how to resume supporting his wife and two teenage sons after his transfer from Guantánamo Bay. He has been a quiet, compliant detainee preferring to spend his time watching soccer and reading the Quran. He is open to transfer to any Arabic-speaking country in the Gulf region, but prefers Saudi Arabia to Pakistan due to the deteriorating security and safety situation in that country, and is willing to participate in any rehabilitation or reintegration program required for transfer. Abdul Rahim is an avid soccer player and sports fan. He encourages his sons to train in martial arts to help them focus, exercise, and learn discipline. Abdul mentioned the possibility of becoming a small business owner running a martial arts studio or return to taxi driving. Based on the outpouring of family statements of support from both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, they are more than ready to provide for him whenever he is transferred, and to help him find honest work possibly in carpentry or as a private chauffeur, or any other trade. Additionally, his PC and Reprieve agree to help him adjust to life after his transfer.

We are confident that Abdul Rahim’s desire to pursue a peaceful way of life, to raise his sons as good citizens, and to dissuade them from joining extremist groups if transferred from Guantánamo Bay, is genuine. The support from his family and Reprieve will help him return to society as a productive citizen, and to reject Al Qaida or any other terrorist organization in the future. Based on everything we have seen and heard during our meetings, as well as the statements from his family and his PC, we do not believe that Abdul Rahim is a continuing significant threat to the United States.

Thank you for your time and attention and we look forward to answering any questions you may have during this Board.

Periodic Review Board Initial Hearing, 7 July 2016

Abdul Rabbani Abu Rahmah

Private Counsel Opening Statement

Good Morning. My name is Agnieszka Fryszman and I am one of the private counsel for Abdul Rabbani. I spent the start of my career working for the United States government. I am now in private practice and focus primarily on representing victims of human trafficking and other human rights abuses, including representing victims of terror attacks.

Thank you for the opportunity to assist Mr. Rabbani in this review process.

I have represented Mr. Rabbani since 2005 and have had many meetings with him over that time.

In my statement I will focus on four things that I will summarize and then turn to in more detail:

1. Consistently over the 10 years that we have met with him, Mr. Rabbani has accepted the reason for his incarceration here. He has acknowledged responsibility for his mistakes and his conduct.

2. Mr. Rabbani has never been an ideologue or jihadist. Over the 10 years that we have met with him, he has never once — not even a single time — expressed any anger or animus towards the United States or towards any American citizen.

3. During his time at Guantánamo, Mr. Rabbani has kept himself busy with simple pursuits — he sweeps up and cleans his block, for example — and stays away from conflict.

4. There is a plan in place to support Mr. Rabbani. lf he is approved for transfer, he will have housing, job opportunities and be supported by his family as well as receive NGO support, including from the Life After Guantánamo Project, as demonstrated by the stack of letters we have submitted.

I believe Mr. Rabbani squarely fits the criteria this panel has used when evaluating detainees for successful repatriation.

Mr. Rabbani is a simple man. He is not well educated. When he is nervous or uncomfortable, it is easy to tell. This hearing is undoubtedly stressful for him. You will probably not see his humor or gentle nature in this setting. You will see that he sometimes struggles with comprehension and abstract questions.

Nonetheless, as Mr. Rabbani recently said to me, “I have had a lot of time to think about the mistakes I made.”

As my co-counsel John Holland explains in his statement, which you have in your packet, Mr. Rabbani was an indigent Arabic-speaking, off-and-on taxi driver in Karachi when he was hired for a steady, relatively well-paid job: to provide labor for Khalid Sheik Mohammed. He performed tasks as directed and was paid a salary.

That is a job he certainly regrets taking.

In his own words: “I found myself in a hole. I don’t want to find myself in a hole again. I was an idiot.” He has also said, “at the end of the day, I deserve what happened to me. I hope you will forgive me and allow me to turn a new page.”

Mr. Rabbani did not act for ideological or hate filled reasons. During the entire ten years we have represented him, he has never expressed to us any anti-American sentiment. He has never expressed to us any anger or intent to harm anyone. He’s even said he appreciates the prison management and thinks they are doing a good job.

He has always treated me and all of the lawyers on his team with the utmost respect and courtesy, whether they are men, women, Christians or Jews. He asks after our families and shares information on folk remedies for health problems. He has a gentle sense of humor.

During his time at Guantánamo, Mr. Rabbani has most recently occupied himself by cleaning his cell block. He cleans the block twice a week, including the showers and sometimes the rooms. He brings food in and takes food out. The guards provide him with trash bags, soap, and cleaning supplies.

He does this to have something constructive to do. My understanding is that he has been a compliant detainee and that he follows the rules. He’s told me that he avoids conflict and does not want to be around detainees who cause trouble.

For example, his brother is here at Guantánamo and is a hunger striker. Abdul tried to talk his brother out of hunger striking.

That is how he will be if and when he is returned home.

He knows that he is no longer young and he has matured while here. Mr. Rabbani is acutely aware of the time he has lost with his family, his wife and his sons. He is aware that he has lost that time as a consequence of his own actions.

He has, however, stayed in contact with his family via the skype and telephone calls provided by the ICRC. They are a close family and are eager to have him back. Mr. Rabbani is eager to return home, to live with his children, and to raise them with his wife. He’d like to coach them in soccer and wants the boys to learn computer skills. He is determined to help them build a good life.

Mr. Rabbani’s wife owns her home in Karachi, Pakistan. She and her family are prepared to support Mr. Rabbani when he returns. Her father and brothers live nearby, and have held steady working class jobs as carpenters. They are prepared to provide training and job opportunities to Mr. Rabbani. None of these family members have ties to extremists.

For example, Mr. Rabbani ‘s father-in-law writes that he and his sons are in a position to help Abdul with his return to normal life and will do all they can to support him. The father taught his sons carpentry, still has many connections in the trade and will assist Abdul in promptly finding steady work, as he did with his own sons. Five declarations from relatives and neighbors in Karachi, all people prepared to assist with Mr. Rabbani’s repatriation, have been submitted to you.

Mr. Rabbani also has family in Saudi Arabia. His family in Medina is stable and middle class. They all have their own apartments and steady jobs, or have retired from steady jobs. For example, his sister’s four children are all college educated, including a daughter who is a computer programmer and a son who has a PhD. The brothers have held steady employment as private chauffeurs for over 30 years. The family in Medina is prepared to provide Mr. Rabbani and his family an apartment, substantial support, and a job as a driver. None of these family members have ties to extremists. Indeed, to the contrary, the family stated that “If any family member were so inclined — and they are not — the family would report him to the Ministry of lnterior immediately.”

As the family wrote in their declaration, “we are prepared to bring Abdul home to Medina, have him close to us where our families can provide a positive example and a source of stability, and ensure that he is provided the support he will need.”

Mr. Rabbani’s simple skills — driving, cooking — are easily transferable. The Reprieve Life After Guantánamo Project believes he is well situated to find work in these areas and is prepared to support him as he does so. Two declarations from the Life After Guantánamo Project are in your packet.

Mr. Rabbani would prefer to make a clean break with the past, and not return to Pakistan. He’d prefer to go to Saudi Arabia, if possible, and have his wife and children join him there. Finally, wherever he is transferred, Mr. Rabbani is willing to agree to appropriate security measures, and to participate in a rehabilitation program.

I’d like to close with Mr. Rabbani’s own words: “I have had a lot of time to think about the mistakes I made. I didn’t know anything about politics until I got myself into trouble. I found myself in a big hole. At the end of the day, I deserve what happened to me. I hope you will forgive me and allow me to turn a new page.”

Thank you for your consideration.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer, film-maker and singer-songwriter (the lead singer and main songwriter for the London-based band The Four Fathers, whose debut album ‘Love and War’ and EP ‘Fighting Injustice’ are available here to download or on CD via Bandcamp). He is the co-founder of the Close Guantánamo campaign (and the Countdown to Close Guantánamo initiative, launched in January 2016), the co-director of We Stand With Shaker, which called for the release from Guantánamo of Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in the prison (finally freed on October 30, 2015), and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by the University of Chicago Press in the US, and available from Amazon, including a Kindle edition — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here — or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and The Complete Guantánamo Files, an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the Close Guantánamo campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

As Theresa May Becomes Prime Minister, A Look Back at Her Authoritarianism, Islamophobia and Harshness on Immigration

First off, it says little for democracy that, after the biggest constitutional crisis in most of our lifetimes (the result of the EU referendum, which may take years to resolve), the Conservative Party has responded by having just 199 MPs anoint a new leader to run the country after David Cameron, aging 20 years overnight, bumbled off into the sunset of a poisoned legacy.

Cameron, it is assumed, will forever be known as the worst Prime Minister since Neville Chamberlain (or Anthony Eden), a so-called leader who, because he was too cowardly to face down critics who were even more right-wing than him — in his own party, and in UKIP — called a referendum that he was then too arrogant to believe he could lose. I was fearful at the time Cameron announced the referendum, in January 2013, that it could all go horribly wrong, and on the morning of June 24 my fears were confirmed as 17 million voters — a weird mix of political vandals, racists, xenophobes, left-wing idealists and the ill-informed — voted for us to leave the EU.

Cameron left his mess for others to clear up, and within days most of those who had run with his idiocy and had campaigned to get us out of Europe fell too. Nigel Farage announced that he was standing down as UKIP leader, hopefully doing us all a favour by, as a result, diminishing UKIP’s weird reptilian personality cult.

Boris Johnson was next, the Tories’ main cheerleader for Brexit, who was shunned in his leadership hopes by his own party. Astonishingly, he seemed to have crossed a line, being too obviously self-serving and untrustworthy in a field where those two attributes are generally found to be perfectly acceptable. What tainted him forever, I believe, was the revelation that he didn’t actually believe Britain should leave the EU, and only campaigned for it to position himself for a leadership gambit further down the line.

Johnson’s deputy, the peculiar Michael Gove, who had ended up stabbing him in the back after the referendum, was the next casualty, booted out of the leadership contest, and then the brief Brexit challenger to the Tory throne, Andrea Leadsom, was pressurised to withdraw, leaving Theresa May, the home secretary, as the unchallenged new leader, anointed by just 199 people, the 199 Tory MPs who had backed her leadership bid.

Theresa May makes cooing one nation unity noises, and appears to be a decent enough person in that English, Christian-from-the-shires Tory manner that, unfortunately, is generally rather dull and intolerant in reality. As Home Secretary, for an astonishing six years in a job that turns everyone who touches it into an authoritarian nightmare, she was indeed an authoritarian nightmare, and worryingly Islamophobic.

On counter-terrorism, Theresa May became obsessive about sending the cleric Abu Qatada back to Jordan, even though doing so was a breach of the UK’s obligations, under the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on Torture, not to send any foreign national back to a country where they faced the risk of torture. I wrote about the case in April 2012, in an article entitled, If Abu Qatada is Guilty of Crimes, Why Not Prosecute Him in the UK?, and again in September 2014, in Abu Qatada’s Release in Jordan Discredits Tory Hysteria About the Need to Dismiss Human Rights Law.

Theresa May was also horribly enthusiastic about extraditing five men to the US on terrorism charges, including Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan, who were both accused of running a website that promoted violent jihad, and who were both, eventually, released back to the UK. She ended up bragging inappropriately about the men’s extradition at the Conservative Party Conference in October 2012, and also made a point of stopping the extradition of Gary McKinnon, a white man with Asperger’s, while celebrating the extradition of Talha Ahsan, a Muslim with Asperger’s. In an article for Al-Jazeera in July 2014, I noted:

In July 2004 and December 2006, the Crown Prosecution Service declared that there was “insufficient evidence” to charge Ahmad with any criminal offence under UK law, as did Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, in September 2006, and yet neither the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, nor the current Tory-led coalition government, took any interest. Instead, Theresa May, the current home secretary, drew understandable accusations of racism when, having gloated about the successful extradition of Ahmad, Ahsan and three other men in the opening words of her speech at the Conservative Party Conference in October 2012, she then refused to extradite Gary McKinnon, a hacker who also has Asperger’s Syndrome, the week after.

Perhaps most alarmingly, Theresa May also became obsessed with extra-judicially stripping foreign-born British citizens accused of involvement with terrorism of their citizenship, even if it leaves them stateless, as I discussed in March 2014, when I also posted a transcript of a parliamentary debate about the proposals. I followed up in May 2014 with another article, MPs Support Alarming Citizenship-Stripping Measures Introduced by Theresa May, and I still find the main charges against Theresa May, which I wrote about in my March 2014 article, profoundly shocking:

The Bureau [of Investigative Journalism] has established that 41 individuals have been stripped of their British nationality since 2002, and that 37 of these cases have taken place under Theresa May, since the Tory-led coalition government was formed in May 2010, with 27 of these cases being on the grounds that their presence in the UK is “not conducive to the public good.” In December, the Bureau confirmed that, in 2013, Theresa May “removed the citizenship of 20 individuals — more than in every other year of the Coalition government put together.” As the Bureau suggested in February 2013, it appears that, in two cases, the stripping of UK citizenship led to the men in question subsequently being killed by US drone attacks.

Last May, when the Tories managed to win a General Election outright — revealing only how broken our first-past-the-post voting system truly is — I was furious about her enthusiasm for Britain renouncing its human right obligations, which I wrote about in an article entitled, What Does It Say About the Tories That They Want to Scrap Human Rights Legislation? May has recently signalled that she will no longer be seeking to withdraw from our human right obligations, which would require us to withdraw from the Council of Europe, not the EU, but I can see no reason why she should be trusted.

Theresa May also has a harsh track record on accepting refugees. Last September, after the photo of three-year old Ayman Kurdi, drowned on a beach, went viral and generated huge sympathy for the plight of refugees, I noted her hardline approach:

I was already appalled by my government’s disdain for the huge number of refugees leaving Africa and the Middle East — many from countries we have helped to destabilise (Syria and Libya, for example). In May, for example, as the death toll in the Mediterranean reached 1,800 this year, Theresa May, the home secretary, was refusing calls for an EU quota for refugees, and disagreeing with a suggestion by the EU’s High Representative, Federica Mogherini, that “no migrants” intercepted at sea should be “sent back against their will.” The BBC reported that she said, “Such an approach would only act as an increased pull factor across the Mediterranean and encourage more people to put their lives at risk.”

She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that “many of the people coming across the central Mediterranean were not refugees, but economic migrants from places such as Nigeria, Eritrea and Somalia” — an appalling and unfair generalisation, when Eritrea currently has the worst human rights record in the world, and Somalia is a country ravaged by war.

May is also to blame for other horrible draconian gestures — the “go home” vans that she sent around the streets of London, and, with much more impact, her refusal to grant visas to the foreign spouses of UK nationals if the latter do not earn £18,600 a year, which, it should be noted, is more than the national median income for the UK, and roughly the same as the median income in London. I have friends who have been affected by this, and am shocked and appalled that this arbitrary decision that love can only cross national boundaries with a price tag has been allowed to stand, tearing apart tens of thousands of blameless families and causing untold damage to the children affected.

Theresa May also has a track record of being obsessed with snooping and surveillance, and, after the EU referendum, failed to reassure EU nationals living in the UK that they would be able to stay in the country. She soon changed her tune, but I imagine that shameful refusal to support foreign-born workers will continue to haunt those who are persistently feeling alienated since the result was announced.

In a second article to follow soon I’ll examine Theresa May’s new cabinet, which, astonishingly, included the return of Boris Johnson — as foreign secretary! — just 13 days after he ruled himself out of the Tory leadership election. For now, however, I hope this brief re-cap of Theresa May’s history as home secretary will provide something of an antidote to those regarding her as safe pair of hands and allowing misty notions of unity to overshadow the truth of her six years as a dangerous and divisive authoritarian.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer, film-maker and singer-songwriter (the lead singer and main songwriter for the London-based band The Four Fathers, whose debut album ‘Love and War’ and EP ‘Fighting Injustice’ are available here to download or on CD via Bandcamp). He is the co-founder of the Close Guantánamo campaign (and the Countdown to Close Guantánamo initiative, launched in January 2016), the co-director of We Stand With Shaker, which called for the release from Guantánamo of Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in the prison (finally freed on October 30, 2015), and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by the University of Chicago Press in the US, and available from Amazon, including a Kindle edition — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here — or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and The Complete Guantánamo Files, an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the Close Guantánamo campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

Radio: Andy Worthington Discusses Guantánamo and Brexit on Portland’s KBOO FM with Linda Olson-Osterlund

Last Friday I was delighted to take part in an hour-long show on KBOO FM, a community radio station in Portland, Oregon, to discuss the ongoing situation regarding the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and also to discuss Britain’s proposed departure from the European Union after the referendum on June 23.

The MP3 for the show is here , and I hope you have time to listen to it, and to share it if you find it useful.

The show — Positively Revolting — was hosted by Linda Olson-Osterlund, who has long taken an interest in Guantánamo, and has been interviewing me on a regular basis since 2008 (see here for shows from the last three years).

Linda began by mentioning the two police murders last week (of Alton Sterling and Philander Castile), and the killing of police officers in Dallas, and we then moved on to discuss the situation at Guantánamo with less than 200 days left of the Obama presidency, and she directed listeners to the website of the Close Guantánamo campaign, which I established in January 2010 with the lawyer Tom Wilner, who represented the Guantánamo prisoners in their Supreme Court cases in 2004 and 2008.

In January, I set up the Countdown to Close Guantánamo, launching it on Democracy Now! with music legend Roger Waters, and encouraging people to print off posters counting down every 50 days to the end of Obama’s presidency, to take a photo, and to send it in for the website, and for use on social media (see our Facebook and Twitter pages).

Linda also promoted the Gitmo Clock, which I launched via the campaign a few months ago, and which counts down every day, hour, minute and second that President Obama has left to fulfill the promise to close Guantánamo that he made on his second day in office in January 2009.

Linda and I also discusssed President Obama’s history regarding Guantánamo, and the general situation regarding the prison now — the 76 men still held (79 at the time of the interview), and how 29 of them have been approved for release, and the 47 others, of whom just ten are facing trials, with the others facing Periodic Review Boards to establish whether they too can be approved for release. Many of these men were wrongly described, years ago, as too dangerous to release, but since the PRBs began in 2013, over two dozen of these allegedly “dangerous” men have been approved for release.

Linda also played a clip from my band The Four Fathers’ new Fighting Injustice EP — the first verse of the title track. US listeners can find the EP here, and “Fighting Injustice” (the song) is here. You can listen for free, but if you like what you hear, do think about buying the EP, or individual songs, to support the band.

The EP also features “Neo-Liberal Bullshit Blues” and a re-worked version of “Song for Shaker Aamer,” which I wrote as a campaign song calling for the release of Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in the prison, who was finally freed last October. I wrote new lyrics reflecting Shaker’s release, and recorded the new lyrics a couple of months ago for the new EP. Linda and I also discussed Shaker’s story on the show.

We also spoke about Britain’s depressing EU referendum on June 23, which resulted in a narrow majority voting for the UK to leave the EU, and which I have been writing about since, highlighting how potentially disastrous it is for the UK’s economy and its standing in the world, how it has unleashed racism and xenophobia, and how the result has left those who voted to remain feeling genuinely bereaved.

You can catch up on my analysis via the following articles: UK Votes to Leave the EU: A Triumph of Racism and Massively Counter-Productive Political Vandalism, Life in the UK After the EU Referendum: Waking Up Repeatedly at a Funeral That Never Ends, Not Giving Up: Photos from the March for Europe in London, Saturday July 2, 2016, As the Leaderless UK Begins Sinking, MPs, Media and British Citizens Don’t Seem to Care, On Brexit, the Labour Party, With Its Blundering and Pointless Coup, Lost Its Best Opportunity Ever to Attack the Tories and 1,000+ Lawyers Tell Parliament that UK Cannot Leave EU Without MPs’ Consent.

More articles on Britain’s ongoing crisis will be forthcoming soon.

As I noted above, I do hope you have time to listen to this show, which also featured some interesting calls from listeners. KBOO FM is a great channel, and Linda is a very well-informed host.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer, film-maker and singer-songwriter (the lead singer and main songwriter for the London-based band The Four Fathers, whose debut album ‘Love and War’ and EP ‘Fighting Injustice’ are available here to download or on CD via Bandcamp). He is the co-founder of the Close Guantánamo campaign (and the Countdown to Close Guantánamo initiative, launched in January 2016), the co-director of We Stand With Shaker, which called for the release from Guantánamo of Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in the prison (finally freed on October 30, 2015), and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by the University of Chicago Press in the US, and available from Amazon, including a Kindle edition — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here — or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and The Complete Guantánamo Files, an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the Close Guantánamo campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

76 Men Left in Guantánamo, as Yemeni Starts New Life in Italy, and Another Yemeni and the Last Tajik Go to Serbia

I wrote the following article for the “Close Guantánamo” website, which I established in January 2012, on the 10th anniversary of the opening of Guantánamo, with the US attorney Tom Wilner. Please join us — just an email address is required to be counted amongst those opposed to the ongoing existence of Guantánamo, and to receive updates of our activities by email.

On July 10, the Pentagon announced that Fayiz Ahmad Yahia Suleiman (ISN 153), a 41-year old Yemeni who arrived at the prison in its first week of operations, on January 17, 2002 and was approved for release from Guantánamo six and a half years ago, had finally been freed, and given a new home in Italy. Two prisoners, both Tunisians, were previously transferred to Italy, in 2009, where they were briefly imprisoned before returning to Tunisia during the optimistic early days of the Arab Spring.

Suleiman — who, it should be stressed, will be a free man in Italy — was approved for release by the high-level, inter-agency Guantánamo Review Task Force that President Obama established shortly after taking office in January 2009, and that issued its final report in January 2010. He is the last Yemeni out of 126 men approved for release by the task force to be freed.

In addition, eleven Yemenis are left out of 30 approved for release by the task force but then placed in a sub-category of “conditional detention” — conditional on a perceived improvement in the security situation in Yemen. No indication was given as to how this would be decided, but what happened instead was that the entire US establishment agreed not to repatriate any Yemenis, and so the “conditional detention” group languished until the Obama administration began finding countries that would offer new homes to them, a process that only began last November and that, with Suleiman’s release, has led to 19 men being given new homes — in the UAE, Ghana, Oman, Montenegro and Saudi Arabia.

At the time of Suleiman’s release, three other men, from other countries, were still awaiting release based on the task force’s recommendations, and today, July 11, the Pentagon announced that one of the three — Muhammadi Davliatov, the last Tajik in the prison, who had been known in Guantánamo as Umar Abdulayev — had also also been freed, sent to start a new life in Serbia.

A second man was also sent to Serbia — Mansoor al-Zahari (aka Mansur Ahmad Saad al-Dayfi), a Yemeni who had been recommended for release last October by another review process, the Periodic Review Boards. This process was established in 2013 to review the cases of all the remaining prisoners not already approved for release or facing trials (with just ten men being in this latter category), and 26 men have so far been recommended for release by the PRBs. Al-Zahari is the eleventh to be freed.

The story of Fayiz Suleiman

When I undertook preliminary research into the Guantánamo prisoners in 2006-07, I found little in the documentation released by the Pentagon as a result of FOIA lawsuits that provided much information about Fayiz Suleiman.

In an article in September 2010, I stated the following:

According to a summary of evidence at Guantánamo, Suleiman “identified himself as a trained imam in Jeddah,” and stated that various sheikhs “would frequent his facility to solicit money for other countries and to address jihad.” He added that the majority of the sheikhs’ talks “focused on Chechnya.” Although he was accused by unknown sources of training to make poisons at Kandahar airport and of being in Tora Bora, he maintained that “he had no military service and he had no desire to serve in such a capacity,” stated that he was “never trained on the use of weapons,” and “denied any connection with al-Qaeda or the Taliban.”

When WikiLeaks released classified military files on the prisoners in 2011, Suleiman emerged as, probably, a low-level Taliban foot soldier, although his file was thin. He was apparently seized crossing from Afghanistan to Pakistan, and had been escorted to the border by a relative of an Afghan who had extended hospitality to him in Kabul. It was noted that he “was arrested by Pakistani police shortly after he crossed the border,” and that then “[t]he police took him with a group of five other Arabs to the prison at Kohat, PK where they remained for approximately two weeks,” before being transferred to Kandahar and then Guantánamo. Unusually, no reason was given for his transfer to Guantánamo, suggesting that cursory interrogation in US custody in Afghanistan had yielded nothing that suggested he was of any significance whatsoever.

A claim that he was in Tora Bora, the site of a showdown between Al-Qaeda and Afghan ground troops working with the US, and that he met Osama bin Laden there, was made by Guantánamo’s most unreliable informant, Yasim Basardah, who also made an implausible claim that he “was trained to make poisons at the Kandahar Airport,” and that he told him “he could make a toxin from rotting meat that would poison people,” but that he, Basardah, “was not allowed to look at detainee’s notebook to see how that was done.”

In the Miami Herald, Carol Rosenberg reported that Suleiman had never seen an attorney during his 14 years of detention, according to one of his lawyers of record, Jon Sands, an Arizona federal public defender. Sands explained, however, that “Suleiman recently asked to meet,” and that he had been “making plans to travel to the base to see him in August.” He added that he “did not believe Suleiman had any family ties in Italy,” but stated that it was “a good place for anyone. It’s a good place for him, and we hope he can find some peace after his detention at Guantánamo.”

He also said, “It’s better than many other locations, and maybe it’s part of the G-exit strategy” — a reference to President Obama’s ongoing efforts to close Guantánamo before he leaves office.

The story of Muhammadi Davliatov

The second man to be released, Muhammadi Davliatov (ISN 257), is 37 years old and was the last Tajik in Guantánamo, where he was known as Umar Abdulayev.

As I explained in an article in July 2009, Davliatov’s own account of his life and how he had ended up in US custody was included in a court submission for his habeas corpus hearing back in June 2009, in which he explained that “he fled the civil war in Tajikistan with his family in 1992, when he was 13 years old.” He also said that “they lived in northern Afghanistan with other Tajik refugees, and added that, in 1994, his father was shot and killed on the Tajik-Afghan border, while attempting to ‘investigate the situation’ in Tajikistan, having heard ‘pleas on the radio from the Tajik government, urging Tajik refugees to return home.’”

I also wrote:

For the next seven years, the rest of the family remained in Afghanistan, “relying upon aid from international refugee organizations,” but in early 2001, his mother took the whole family — Abdulayev and his two younger sisters and two younger brothers — to Pakistan, “in order to escape the escalating violence and unrest in Afghanistan.” They lived in “a government-sponsored refugee camp named Camp Babu,” near Peshawar, which “comprised mostly of families, and was principally for Afghan refugees.”

It was here, on November 25, 2001, that Abdulayev was seized by Pakistani police and handed over to Pakistani intelligence officials. In a gut-wrenching statement, Abdulayev said, “I never saw my family again, and to this day, I have not heard from them or been able to contact them.”

He also explained that he had been forced to copy “specific passages about weapons and explosives from books that the intelligence officials gave to me,” and said that, after about a month, he was told that he would be returned to his mother, but was taken instead to Kohat jail. From there he was flown, with 25 to 30 other men, to the US prison at Kandahar airport, where his ordeal in American custody began, and he was flown to Guantánamo in early February 2002.

At the time, Justice Department lawyers responded to Davliatov’s account by telling the judge looking at his habeas petition, Judge Reggie Walton, that they would “no longer defend his detention,” and that they wanted US diplomats “to arrange to repatriate him.”

There were two problems with this decision: firstly, it failed to allow Davliatov to have an opportunity to clear his name; and secondly, it indicated that the US was prepared to repatriate him, even though some of the eleven Tajiks previously repatriated from Guantánamo had been treated appallingly, and Davliatov had no desire to return home. In court filings, as Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald explained, Abdulayev stated that he was visited at Guantánamo by Tajik intelligence agents who made him “a sinister offer: Spy on Muslim radicals in the former Soviet Republic in exchange for his release.” When he refused, he said, “the agents threatened retribution.”

Back in July 2009, one of his lawyers, Matthew O’Hara, explained, “he’s told us he’d rather stay another seven years in Guantánamo than go back to Tajikistan.” Ironically, it is now almost exactly seven years to the day since that comment, and Davliatov has only just been freed.

Explaining what has happened in the last seven years, his lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights stated, in a press release, that he had had to “obtain a court injunction against his transfer to Tajikistan,” and that the Obama administration had “obtained a stay of his legal case based on repeated representations to the court that his detention was no longer at issue and he would be released expeditiously.” However, as CCR added, the government “did not transfer him.”

Instead, Davliatov “was left to rot at Guantánamo.” His lawyers stated that, “[h]aving hindered his original legal challenge, the Obama administration made no meaningful efforts to transfer him for several years,” and, as a result, in November 2015, the Center for Constitutional Rights, together with Matthew J. O’Hara, Davliatov’s lead counsel at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP and Andy Smith at Reed Smith LLP – who have represented him since 2007 – “filed a new habeas corpus challenge to his ongoing indefinite detention,” in which Davliatov “asked the court to order his release on the ground that his continuing detention was arbitrary and no longer served any ostensible purpose.”

CCR noted that it “had filed a similar challenge on behalf of Algerian detainee Djamel Ameziane in 2013,” and as with Ameziane’s case, “renewed litigation finally prompted the administration to act, albeit, according to his counsel, not out of compassion for Davliatov but, once again, to avoid an adverse court ruling in his case.”

Responding to news of his release, CCR Senior Staff Attorney J. Wells Dixon said, “We are happy that Mr. Davliatov’s Guantánamo nightmare is finally over, and we wish him well as he begins the slow process of rebuilding his life. But the lengths to which the Obama administration went to avoid a court ruling in this case are shameful. Davliatov never should have been brought to Guantánamo, and by the government’s own admission he should have been released six years ago. The administration’s actions are inconsistent with its stated desire to close Guantánamo.”

Matthew J. O’Hara said, “This case represents one of the rare instances in which the United States was not able to return a Guantánamo prisoner to his native country over his objection when he feared for his life there. A preliminary injunction prevented Muhammadi’s involuntary return to Tajikistan in the fall of 2008. By the time the D.C. Circuit later vacated that injunction, Tajikistan was no longer willing to accept Muhammadi. It is a testament to Muhammadi’s strength and determination not to be involuntarily repatriated to Tajikistan that today he is being resettled in Europe as a free man.”

Andy Moss said, “I am elated that Muhammadi will finally be allowed the opportunities he has been arbitrarily denied by our nation since 2002. Like each of the men imprisoned at Guantánamo who have been released, Muhammadi faces formidable personal challenges in rebuilding his life after 14 years as a prisoner without charge, hope, or human dignity. I am grateful to the Serbian people for offering Muhammadi asylum, and I hope everyone will remain patient with and supportive of Muhammadi as he builds a new life for himself and recovers from his long, brutal, and unlawful imprisonment. Knowing him, I believe he will eventually succeed.”

The story of Mansoor al-Zahari

I discussed the story of Mansoor al-Zahari (ISN 441) at the time of his Periodic Review Board in September 2015, when he was 36 years old, and described how he had probably been a low-level foot soldier of the Taliban who, in US custody, had become an enthusiastic fan of American culture, becoming a fan of Taylor Swift, Shakira, Game of Thrones (although he felt there was too much bloodshed), US sitcoms, Christopher Nolan movies and Little House on the Prairie, which “remind[ed] him of his very rural home with few modern conveniences.”

Although angry in his early years at Guantánamo, he had become “a model detainee from the government’s perspective,” according to his lawyer, federal defender Carlos Warner, and it was not surprising when, last October, he was recommended for release. It is now to be hoped — as it is for the other men freed — that Serbia will be a welcoming environment for them, and that their family members will be able to visit them.

With the release of Fayiz Suleiman, Muhammadi Davliatov and Mansoor al-Zahari, 76 men are still held at Guantánamo, and 28 of those men have been approved for release — 13 by the task force, and 15 others through the Periodic Review Boards.

Of the 28 prisoners still held who have been approved for release, the Obama administration has said that it intends to release the majority — 20 more, according to reports in May — by the end of July.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer, film-maker and singer-songwriter (the lead singer and main songwriter for the London-based band The Four Fathers, whose debut album ‘Love and War’ and EP ‘Fighting Injustice’ are available here to download or on CD via Bandcamp). He is the co-founder of the Close Guantánamo campaign (and the Countdown to Close Guantánamo initiative, launched in January 2016), the co-director of We Stand With Shaker, which called for the release from Guantánamo of Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in the prison (finally freed on October 30, 2015), and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by the University of Chicago Press in the US, and available from Amazon, including a Kindle edition — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here — or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and The Complete Guantánamo Files, an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the Close Guantánamo campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

See the following for articles about the 142 prisoners released from Guantánamo from June 2007 to January 2009 (out of the 532 released by President Bush), and the 158 prisoners released from February 2009 to June 2016 (by President Obama), whose stories are covered in more detail than is available anywhere else –- either in print or on the internet –- although many of them, of course, are also covered in The Guantánamo Files, and for the stories of the other 390 prisoners released by President Bush, see my archive of articles based on the classified military files released by WikiLeaks in 2011: June 2007 –- 2 Tunisians, 4 Yemenis (here, here and here); July 2007 –- 16 Saudis; August 2007 –- 1 Bahraini, 5 Afghans; September 2007 –- 16 Saudis; 1 Mauritanian; 1 Libyan, 1 Yemeni, 6 Afghans; November 2007 –- 3 Jordanians, 8 Afghans; 14 Saudis; December 2007 –- 2 Sudanese; 13 Afghans (here and here); 3 British residents; 10 Saudis; May 2008 –- 3 Sudanese, 1 Moroccan, 5 Afghans (here, here and here); July 2008 –- 2 Algerians; 1 Qatari, 1 United Arab Emirati, 1 Afghan; August 2008 –- 2 Algerians; September 2008 –- 1 Pakistani, 2 Afghans (here and here); 1 Sudanese, 1 Algerian; November 2008 –- 1 Kazakh, 1 Somali, 1 Tajik; 2 Algerians; 1 Yemeni (Salim Hamdan), repatriated to serve out the last month of his sentence; December 2008 –- 3 Bosnian Algerians; January 2009 –- 1 Afghan, 1 Algerian, 4 Iraqis; February 2009 — 1 British resident (Binyam Mohamed); May 2009 —1 Bosnian Algerian (Lakhdar Boumediene); June 2009 — 1 Chadian (Mohammed El-Gharani); 4 Uighurs to Bermuda; 1 Iraqi; 3 Saudis (here and here); August 2009 — 1 Afghan (Mohamed Jawad); 2 Syrians to Portugal; September 2009 — 1 Yemeni; 2 Uzbeks to Ireland (here and here); October 2009 — 1 Kuwaiti, 1 prisoner of undisclosed nationality to Belgium; 6 Uighurs to Palau; November 2009 — 1 Bosnian Algerian to France, 1 unidentified Palestinian to Hungary, 2 Tunisians to Italian custody; December 2009 — 1 Kuwaiti (Fouad al-Rabiah); 2 Somalis; 4 Afghans; 6 Yemenis; January 2010 — 2 Algerians, 1 Uzbek to Switzerland; 1 Egyptian, 1 Azerbaijani and 1 Tunisian to Slovakia; February 2010 — 1 Egyptian, 1 Libyan, 1 Tunisian to Albania; 1 Palestinian to Spain; March 2010 — 1 Libyan, 2 unidentified prisoners to Georgia, 2 Uighurs to Switzerland; May 2010 — 1 Syrian to Bulgaria, 1 Yemeni to Spain; July 2010 — 1 Yemeni (Mohammed Hassan Odaini); 1 Algerian; 1 Syrian to Cape Verde, 1 Uzbek to Latvia, 1 unidentified Afghan to Spain; September 2010 — 1 Palestinian, 1 Syrian to Germany; January 2011 — 1 Algerian; April 2012 — 2 Uighurs to El Salvador; July 2012 — 1 Sudanese; September 2012 — 1 Canadian (Omar Khadr) to ongoing imprisonment in Canada; August 2013 — 2 Algerians; December 2013 — 2 Algerians; 2 Saudis; 2 Sudanese; 3 Uighurs to Slovakia; March 2014 — 1 Algerian (Ahmed Belbacha); May 2014 — 5 Afghans to Qatar (in a prisoner swap for US PoW Bowe Bergdahl); November 2014 — 1 Kuwaiti (Fawzi al-Odah); 3 Yemenis to Georgia, 1 Yemeni and 1 Tunisian to Slovakia, and 1 Saudi; December 2014 — 4 Syrians, a Palestinian and a Tunisian to Uruguay; 4 Afghans; 2 Tunisians and 3 Yemenis to Kazakhstan; January 2015 — 4 Yemenis to Oman, 1 Yemeni to Estonia; June 2015 — 6 Yemenis to Oman; September 2015 — 1 Moroccan and 1 Saudi; October 2015 — 1 Mauritanian and 1 British resident (Shaker Aamer); November 2015 — 5 Yemenis to the United Arab Emirates; January 2016 — 2 Yemenis to Ghana; 1 Kuwaiti (Fayiz al-Kandari) and 1 Saudi; 10 Yemenis to Oman; 1 Egyptian to Bosnia and 1 Yemeni to Montenegro; April 2016 — 2 Libyans to Senegal; 9 Yemenis to Saudi Arabia; June 2016 — 1 Yemeni to Montenegro.

1,000+ Lawyers Tell Parliament that UK Cannot Leave EU Without MPs’ Consent

“Brexit means Brexit, and we’re going to make a success of it,” said Theresa May, as she became the leader of the Conservative Party and the next Prime Minister, following Andrea Leadsom’s withdrawal from the Tory leadership contest.

This is bad news for those of us who fear Theresa May’s authoritarianism, and, I must say, what seems to be her Islamophobia, but for now I want to focus not on her beliefs in detail but on her Brexit statement, as the fallout from the EU referendum 18 days ago is still the most important story in the UK, despite the mainstream media’s constant efforts not to acknowledge it as such.

May’s repeated message about Brexit is at odds with a letter delivered on Saturday to the outgoing Prime Minster David Cameron, the architect of our Brexit fiasco — just the day before he was booed at Wimbledon — signed by 1,054 lawyers, who point out that the EU referendum result is not legally binding, because it was only advisory. As they state, “The referendum did not set a threshold necessary to leave the EU, commonly adopted in polls of national importance, e.g. 60% of those voting or 40% of the electorate.”

They also point out that, “in order to trigger Article 50 [of the Lisbon Treaty, which formally starts the Brexit process], there must first be primary legislation,” adding that it is “of the utmost importance that the legislative process is informed by an objective understanding as to the benefits, costs and risks of triggering Article 50.”

Will Theresa May succeed in her ambition to be Prime Minister until 2020 without a General Election? Personally, I can’t see how that’s possible, because of “evidence that the referendum result was influenced by misrepresentations of fact and promises that could not be delivered, and also because the narrowness of the victory means that “it cannot be discounted that the misrepresentations and promises were a decisive or contributory factor in the result.”

To deal with this, the lawyers propose that “the Government establishes, as a matter of urgency, a Royal Commission or an equivalent independent body to receive evidence and report, within a short, fixed timescale, on the benefits, costs and risks of triggering Article 50 to the UK as a whole, and to all of its constituent populations.”

This seems eminently sensible to me, and I remain extremely interested in all efforts to urge MPs of all parties to demand to be involved in discussions about the potentially catastrophic damage that will be caused by our departure from the EU, and to vote accordingly.

The economic outlook for the UK has improved with the news of May’s appointment, as is to be expected, but it should not be presumed that this will be a long-term improvement, as Paul Mason has made clear in his latest column for the Guardian, “The prospect of Brexit Britain turning into a post-global disaster zone is real.” As he explains, “Theresa May’s conveniently short walk to Downing Street is designed to combat the impression that nobody is in control. But without a major change in policy, we are still rudderless on a churning financial sea.”

Mason’s article continued:

Consider the mechanics of British trade. We’ve been running a current account deficit of 7% – a historic high. That’s because we import more than we export, not just when it comes to goods but to services. For every pound spent in the UK on goods and services, 7p worth of foreign money has to arrive to make up the shortfall.

A falling pound should, under normal conditions, stimulate the flow of foreign money into Britain, because the stuff we sell is cheaper. But these are not normal times.

In order to stave off a post-Brexit recession, it’s likely that the Bank of England will have to cut interest rates to zero. Ever since 2008, the Bank has been keeping this move in reserve in case all else fails, like an ageing centre-forward thrown on in the last five minutes of extra time.But the impact of zero interest rates is to make investing in Britain less attractive. And if the big fat zero does not work, and Mark Carney has to print tens of billions of pounds to stimulate growth, then sterling will become even less attractive.

What “straight” economists worry about is stagflation. Here, the falling pound boosts the price of everything sourced globally – from a Starbucks cappuccino to a MacBook – while growth goes into reverse. What political economists worry about, however, is the absence of a plan. Or a leadership. Or whether the public has consented to be governed by an elite that no longer understands what it is doing.

Below I’m cross-posting the lawyers’ letter in full, in the hope of adding to the pressure on MPs not to abdicate their responsibility for the UK’s future. I recall, vividly, that, although a slim majority of the UK citizens who voted in referendum voted to leave the EU, three-quarters of MPs want us to stay, and should not be swayed from their beliefs.

TO THE PRIME MINISTER AND ALL MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

9 July 2016

Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament

Re: Brexit

We are all individual members of the Bars of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We are writing to propose a way forward which reconciles the legal, constitutional and political issues which arise following the Brexit referendum.

The result of the referendum must be acknowledged. Our legal opinion is that the referendum is advisory.

The European Referendum Act does not make it legally binding. We believe that in order to trigger Article 50, there must first be primary legislation. It is of the utmost importance that the legislative process is informed by an objective understanding as to the benefits, costs and risks of triggering Article 50.

The reasons for this include the following: There is evidence that the referendum result was influenced by misrepresentations of fact and promises that could not be delivered.

Since the result was only narrowly in favour of Brexit, it cannot be discounted that the misrepresentations and promises were a decisive or contributory factor in the result.

The parliamentary vote must not be similarly affected. The referendum did not set a threshold necessary to leave the EU, commonly adopted in polls of national importance, e.g. 60% of those voting or 40% of the electorate.

This is presumably because the result was only advisory. The outcome of the exit process will affect a generation of people who were not old enough to vote in the referendum.

The positions of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar require special consideration, since their populations did not vote to leave the EU.

The referendum did not concern the negotiating position of the UK following the triggering of Article 50, nor the possibility that no agreement could be reached within the stipulated two year period for negotiation, nor the emerging reality that the Article 50 negotiations will concern only the manner of exit from the EU and not future economic relationships.

All of these matters need to be fully explored and understood prior to the Parliamentary vote. The Parliamentary vote should take place with a greater understanding as to the economic consequences of Brexit, as businesses and investors in the UK start to react to the outcome of the referendum.

For all of these reasons, it is proposed that the Government establishes, as a matter of urgency, a Royal Commission or an equivalent independent body to receive evidence and report, within a short, fixed timescale, on the benefits, costs and risks of triggering Article 50 to the UK as a whole, and to all of its constituent populations.

The Parliamentary vote should not take place until the Commission has reported. In view of the extremely serious constitutional, economic and legal importance of the vote either way, we believe that there should be a free vote in Parliament.

Yours sincerely

PHILIP KOLVIN QC

And 1053 others

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer, film-maker and singer-songwriter (the lead singer and main songwriter for the London-based band The Four Fathers, whose debut album ‘Love and War’ and EP ‘Fighting Injustice’ are available here to download or on CD via Bandcamp). He is the co-founder of the Close Guantánamo campaign (and the Countdown to Close Guantánamo initiative, launched in January 2016), the co-director of We Stand With Shaker, which called for the release from Guantánamo of Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in the prison (finally freed on October 30, 2015), and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by the University of Chicago Press in the US, and available from Amazon, including a Kindle edition — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here — or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and The Complete Guantánamo Files, an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the Close Guantánamo campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

On Brexit, the Labour Party, With Its Blundering and Pointless Coup, Lost Its Best Opportunity Ever to Attack the Tories

I find it hard to express sufficiently my contempt for the Labour MPs who, on the day the EU referendum result was announced, squandered one of the greatest opportunities in the Labour Party’s history for attacking the Tories by, instead, launching a pathetic coup against their democratically elected leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

With half the country reeling in shock, the economy in freefall, and David Cameron announcing his resignation, it should have been child’s play to point out that Cameron had called a referendum he didn’t want for the most narrow and cowardly of political reasons (to appease Eurosceptic members of his own party, and UKIP), and that Boris Johnson, who had won it, had also done so for narrow political reasons, to advance his own career, and, moreover, didn’t even believe in the cause for which he had been campaigning.

Instead, a coup that had been planned for months, but that was not initially intended to take place straight after the referendum, was brought forward, and enacted with a drip-feed of resignations that focused the media’s attention almost exclusively on Labour’s meltdown. As a result, criticism of the referendum, and of its result, evaporated.

Time will tell if one reason for the coup being brought forward, as has been suggested, was to compel Jeremy Corbyn to resign before the Chilcot report was issued, so that he could not publicly condemn Tony Blair. That seemed like a plausible suggestion to me (although in the end his response was more measured than critics suggested), but it may be that, as publicly stated, it was because of frustration with the referendum result, and with Corbyn’s perceived lacklustre role in campaigning for Britain to stay in the EU.

On this, the rebels seemed — superficially, at least — to have a point. Corbyn had generally appeared unenthusiastic about supporting the EU, in common with so many on the Left, and to my mind had sounded unconvincing when speaking about it. However, I had taken away the message that the EU helped to protect workers’ rights, and that, on  balance, we should remain and try to reform it from within, and, to be honest, it also seemed clear that Corbyn’s lack of gung-ho enthusiasm for the EU reflected what many people — myself included — were thinking. Moreover, polls indicate that 65% of Labour supporters voted Remain, comparable to the Lib Dems’ 68%. And yet, while Tim Farron immediately positioned the Lib Dems as the party supporting European reintegration, Corbyn immediately faced a coup, despite a comparable performance. In addition, the rebels’ hypocrisy becomes ever more starkly illustrated when you look at how many places rebel MPs couldn’t persuade their own constituents to vote Remain, and when you realise, as I did, that the Parliamentary Labour Party are, in general, so afraid of expressing opinions that might upset some potential voters that it is difficult to imagine them formulating a coherent view on the referendum result, for fear of alienating those who voted Leave.

For many people who voted Remain, the EU was the lesser of two evils: a flawed gargantuan that, on the one hand, has genuinely created a sense of a European community, conceived from the ashes of war, and born in a spirit of breaking down dangerous barriers of nationalism and xenophobia, and that has, importantly, stood up for a raft of our rights against successive British governments who are much less inclined to protect them.

In contrast, another part of the EU’s role is to function as an easy conduit for transnational neo-liberalism, which consistently places corporate greed above the needs of the people, and its weaknesses have also become apparent in recent years through the slow murder of Greece for having borrowed beyond its means when lent to by richer countries who should never have been lending to it in the first place, and through a collective inability to deal adequately with the current and unprecedented refugee crisis.

In addition, Jeremy Corbyn’s perceived silence is always worth looking at before rushing to judgment, because, uniquely in modern British history, he is generally silenced by the mainstream media, which, after his surprising election as the Labour Party leader last September, subjected him to a squalid and disgraceful campaign of sustained character assassination. This spells out clearly how much the political status quo has drifted to the right in the last three decades. Corbyn, a socialist, is treated as a pariah, his very thoughts an existential threat, because, as the establishment has made clear, socialism was supposed to have been destroyed in the UK by Thatcher and Major, and their work was continued by Tony Blair, who was supposed to have made sure it was dead once and for all.

Ironically, of course, Jeremy Corbyn was elected as the leader of the Labour Party because a majority of the party’s members were fed up with its rightward drift, and its inability to portray itself as anything other than a slightly less nasty version of the Conservative Party. That failure had been abundantly evident in the 2015 General Election, when it had been difficult to ascertain what, if anything, the party actually stood for. When the leadership election came around, it was suddenly the right time for an alternative, on the Left, to gain serious support, surprising Corbyn and his longtime ally, John McDonnell, who had stood in previous leadership elections just to provide a voice for the Left, but not with any realistic hope of winning.

By last summer, though, there was a hunger for an alternative to the identikit politics of the Westminster elite — with the Tories, the Lib Dems and Labour all having essentially positioned themselves on the side of big business and the banks and against the interests of the people. As well as being a socialist, Jeremy Corbyn was perceived as being honest, and honesty was — correctly, I believe — perceived as being a profound rarity in politics. In addition, his opponents either lacked conviction (Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper) or were clearly right-wing (Liz Kendall).

The debacle of the leadership contest for anyone who was not genuinely on the Left of the party should have persuaded any would-be rebels that, if they were inclined to look in the mirror and see themselves as leaders, that self-regard was not reflected in reality. Burnham, who had been a minister, secured just 19% of the vote, Yvette Cooper, married to Ed Balls (the former Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, who lost his seat at the General Election), secured just 17%, and Kendall limped home on 4.5%, while Corbyn secured a whopping 59.5% of the votes.

And yet, when the coup began, and shadow ministers began resigning in droves, no one seemed to have learnt the lesson from last summer — that there is no one who can stand against Corbyn and have a chance of persuading party members to vote for them, just as there is no obvious candidate who can do a better job than Corbyn of persuading the wider public to vote for them in a General Election. The coup’s leaders obviously presumed that an election may be forthcoming quite soon, as it seems frankly ridiculous that Cameron’s successor, tasked with presiding over our departure from the EU, can fairly be anointed by just 150,000 Conservative Party members without the rest of the voting population being asked their opinion.

Ridiculously, the fact that there is no obvious replacement for Corbyn only seemed to reluctantly dawn on the coup leaders when it came to putting someone — anyone — forward. Angela Eagle has now stepped forward to take on that role, and Owen Smith is expected to follow, but it seems to me that, within the party, their self-regard is delusional, and with the wider public their hopes will only be greeted, as people are shown their photos in the street, with cries, of “Angela who?” and “Owen who?”

Eagle, the former shadow business secretary, had occasionally made her presence felt over the last nine months, sometimes even standing in for Corbyn, but I wouldn’t say she has leadership potential, while Smith, the former shadow welfare secretary until his coup-induced resignation, hadn’t even registered on my radar, and I’m reasonably well-informed about Westminster politics.

In the meantime, Labour Party membership has swelled enormously since the coup began, with over 100,000 new members joining, taking the party membership to 515,000, far more than the 415,000 members it had under Tony Blair in 1997, before the New Labour project began haemorrhaging grass-roots support. It is not known how many of these new members support Corbyn, but around half filled in a box marked “‘why I joined,” and 80% of those said they had joined to support Jeremy Corbyn.

As the rebels’ suicidal soap opera continues, in its doomed little London bubble, it’s worth noting that, with the Chilcot Report published, and with the rebels having failed to persuade Jeremy Corbyn to stand down, he has finally had the breathing space to criticise the government over the referendum and to argue for Labour’s involvement in any negotiations regarding our departure from the EU. An article, “We can’t leave the negotiations with Europe to the Tories,” was — ironically — published in the almost entirely back-stabbing Guardian on Friday, and I’m cross-posting it below because it represents the position taken by the leader of the largest party in opposition to the Tories, and also to drive home the point that this is what should have happened two weeks ago, when the rebels were, instead, consumed with unforgivable self-obsession.

It’s an important article. Although Corbyn states his belief that “[w]e must respect the democratic decision of the British people” — whereas I maintain that it is the job of Parliament to refuse to implement the wishes of a slim majority of voters because of the unprecedented damage it will cause to our economy and our standing in the world — he immediately clarifies that this means we must “negotiate a new relationship with the EU: one that protects jobs, living standards and workers’ rights – and also ensures we have the freedom to reshape a 21st century economy for all our people.”

And if we cannot do this — if, for example, the EU insists that we must lose all the benefits of EU membership, including access to the single market, unless we continue to accept freedom of movement — then I would hope that the Labour Party will acknowledge that it is too big a price to pay for a perceived problem — immigration — that will not, in any case, go away, regardless of whether some immigration from within the EU is stemmed. Half our recent immigrants, remember, have come from outside the EU.

Corbyn is also, as I would expect, very good on sympathising with those whose communities have been diminished or destroyed by decades of political failure, often dating back to the Thatcher years, but furthered in the last 20 years by New Labour and the Tories’ obsession with a globalised neo-liberal economic model that, like a virulent weed, unremittingly strangles communities in the West, where labour is more expensive than in the developing world. And if his message can get out to the people — if the biased media allows it — it is, I think, Labour’s only hope for bringing back lost voters and enticing new people to vote.

All the other would-be leaders, lest we forget, cannot talk honestly about the failures of our current capitalist model, and also cannot shake off their appearance as members of an out-of-touch Westminster elite, whereas I believe Jeremy Corbyn can, and that he should only be replaced if someone younger comes along who absolutely, 100%, shares his convictions that the only way out of the neo-liberal hellhole we are in is to start thinking once more about solidarity and the common good, and not pandering to the rich and the super-rich. I also think that this can only be done on three fronts simultaneously — domestically, globally and within Europe — hence my continued call for Parliament to refuse to approve Britain’s self-inflicted suicide.

We can’t leave the negotiations with Europe to the Tories

By Jeremy Corbyn, the Guardian, July 8, 2016

Britain is divided and insecure. Years of destructive austerity and a broken economic model have delivered a country of job insecurity, shortages of affordable housing, agency working, wage undercutting and gaping inequalities.

Since voters decided to leave the European Union, those divisions have grown wider. There has been a spike in racist and xenophobic incidents. Many remain voters feel shellshocked and alienated from those who backed leave. The country now faces economic and political crisis. The government is in disarray. As Labour demanded, George Osborne has had to drop his plan for a job-destroying budget surplus. But none of those seeking to replace David Cameron has any kind of exit plan. Instead, once again, they are planning to make working people pay, with yet more spending cuts and tax rises.

What’s needed instead is leadership and a clear strategy. We must respect the democratic decision of the British people – and negotiate a new relationship with the EU: one that protects jobs, living standards and workers’ rights – and also ensures we have the freedom to reshape a 21st century economy for all our people.

To bring the country back together, we have to understand what lay behind the narrow majority to leave. Part of it was clearly about the impact of immigration on a deregulated jobs market and investment-starved housing and public services.

But leave voters were also concentrated in former industrial areas hit hardest by low pay, job insecurity and economic stagnation. In fact, Labour-supporting cities that voted remain, such as London, Bristol and Manchester, have far higher migrant populations than many that backed leave.

The difference is that the latter are areas that have benefited least from a lopsided economic recovery. This was a vote by the people of left-behind Britain against a political establishment that has failed them.

Labour campaigned to “remain and reform” the European Union, and two-thirds of Labour supporters voted remain. That gives us a strong basis to bring together voters from both sides – and set a progressive agenda for negotiations that reflect the needs of the majority. The starting point has to be the red lines laid out by Labour’s shadow chancellor, John McDonnell: including the maintenance of existing employment and social rights, freedom of trade with Europe, and protection of work and residency rights for both EU citizens in Britain and British citizens in Europe.

This week Labour overwhelmingly won a vote in the Commons, led by our shadow home secretary, Andy Burnham, calling on the government to commit to giving EU nationals in the UK the right to remain.

But we need to go further. During the referendum campaign, we argued for an end to EU-enforced liberalisation and privatisation of public services – and for freedom for public enterprise and public investment, now restricted by EU treaties. Those freedoms need to be part of the coming negotiations. Labour also campaigned for tougher regulation of the jobs market and of the exploitation of migrant labour to undercut pay and conditions, as the best way to protect jobs and living standards in the EU.

The same goes for Britain outside the EU. If freedom of movement means the freedom to exploit cheap labour in a race to the bottom, it will never be accepted in any future relationship with Europe. But the reality is that we have allies in that cause across Europe, as on many other issues that will be at the heart of the negotiations ahead. Those negotiations cannot be left to a Tory government that does not speak for the country.

That’s why I am meeting fellow European socialist leaders in Paris this week to discuss the refugee crisis and Europe’s future after Britain’s vote to leave. The increasing momentum to reform the EU will strengthen the Labour case.

Politics has changed for good. After years of disastrous wars, ballooning inequality and a failing political elite, there can be no more business as usual. The damning verdict of the Chilcot report on the Iraq war confirmed that while the political establishment got it disastrously wrong, the majority of our people called it right. This political sea-change is also what led to my own election nine months ago, by 60% of Labour members and supporters.

During that time, we have repeatedly forced the government to drop damaging policies, won every by-election, and beaten the Tories in the local elections. I have made clear I am ready to reach out to Labour MPs who oppose my leadership – and work with the whole party to provide the alternative the country needs. That’s why I am pleased that trade union leaders are exploring ways to bridge the gap and work together more effectively. But MPs also need to respect the democracy of our party and the views of Labour’s membership, which has increased by more than 100,000 to over half a million in the past fortnight alone – by far the largest it has ever been in modern times.

Our priority must now be to mobilise this astonishing new force in politics, and ensure people in Britain have a real political alternative. Those who want to challenge my leadership are free to do so in a democratic contest, in which I will be a candidate.

But the responsibility of our whole party is to stand up in united opposition to the Tory government. If we come together, we can take them on and win.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer, film-maker and singer-songwriter (the lead singer and main songwriter for the London-based band The Four Fathers, whose debut album ‘Love and War’ and EP ‘Fighting Injustice’ are available here to download or on CD via Bandcamp). He is the co-founder of the Close Guantánamo campaign (and the Countdown to Close Guantánamo initiative, launched in January 2016), the co-director of We Stand With Shaker, which called for the release from Guantánamo of Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in the prison (finally freed on October 30, 2015), and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by the University of Chicago Press in the US, and available from Amazon, including a Kindle edition — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here — or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and The Complete Guantánamo Files, an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the Close Guantánamo campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

As the Leaderless UK Begins Sinking, MPs, Media and British Citizens Don’t Seem to Care

Two weeks after the EU referendum, the situation in the UK is even more depressing than it was at the time, for a variety of reasons, primarily to do with having no leadership whatsoever, with few people seemingly caring that we have no leadership whatsoever, and with our political class and our media failing to understand that the ramifications of the referendum result mean that is is not business as usual, and will not be ever again.

Since the result was announced (52.1% for Leave, 48.9% to Remain, on a 72% turnout) we have constantly been told, by those with power and influence, that the will of the people must be accepted, but it remains apparent that the referendum should never have been called, and was only called because of David Cameron’s pathetically narrow political concerns and his cowardly refusal to challenge UKIP and Eurosceptics in his own party. It also remains apparent that it was primarily won because of outrageous lies by the Leave campaign, led by someone — Boris Johnson — who didn’t want to leave the EU and only did so to further his own political aims.

I don’t mean to suggest, by the way, that people only voted Leave because they were lied to. I understand that millions of people made up their own minds, although I don’t believe in general that proper consideration was given to the myriad ramifications of severing our involvement with the EU, by those who weren’t either acting on racist and xenophobic impulses, or false notions of sovereignty (the “us v. them” scenario, even though as a member of the EU, we were part of “them” and, in any case, most decisions about our spending and policies were still taken by our own government), or some essentially counter-productive notion of giving a kicking to the out-of-touch political elite in Westminster. On our sovereignty, by the way, I would just like to remind anyone reading this that Chatham House (aka the Royal Institute of International Affairs) noted, in “Britain, the EU and the Sovereignty Myth,” an important briefing before the referendum, that, “Apart from EU immigration, the British government still determines the vast majority of policy over every issue of greatest concern to British voters – including health, education, pensions, welfare, monetary policy, defence and border security. The arguments for leaving also ignore the fact that the UK controls more than 98 per cent of its public expenditure.”

It is also becoming more and more apparent to me that almost everyone on the political left — the old Left, as I see it — also voted to Leave, in what seems to me to be the mistaken belief that we will somehow be freed from the EU’s neo-liberal impulses, whereas it seems more likely to me that the minnow we will become outside the EU will be forced into even worse trade treaties. I think the Lexit camp also overlooked the many rights that we take for granted that are enshrined in EU legislation, but that are anathema to the Tories. Of course, the Left’s presumption is that they will somehow seize power now we are freed from the yoke of Europe, but it seems more likely that we will instead simply be subjected to an even heavier and more oppressive yoke of homegrown Conservatism, determined to finish the job of destroying the state provision of almost all services in the UK, and turning us into a privatised feudal state, with renewed vigour.

Two weeks on from the referendum, all those responsible have fled, leaving us  — disturbingly —without any leadership, as I mentioned at the start of this article. David Cameron resigned immediately, then Boris Johnson, and then Nigel Farage, and the last to go was Michael Gove, squeezed out of the Conservative Party leadership contest. It is appropriate to be happy that all of these clowns have gone, but, like the public schoolboys they are, they have handed on their mess to someone else to clean up. And throughout this whole disaster, not only is there no accountability, but, more importantly, there is also a hole where outrage and deep concern should be.

The media has become distracted by the Tories’ leadership election, to elect someone who may or may not clean up the mess in an adequate manner, although the details of how that might be done are still not considered to be important enough to be discussed in any sort of detail. And in the meantime, as the weeks pass, the elephant in the room — We are leaderless! No one is steering the ship! — is ignored, when clearly it is a topic that ought to be of the greatest importance.

And all the while, of course, the economy of the newly leaderless UK is in freefall, although, after the initial shock in the markets, we are barely being told about it. My main source of news, on a regular basis throughout the day, is the Guardian’s front page online, but the UK as a leaderless Titanic is never a headline, and even the economic impact of Brexit is rarely the main story. Elsewhere, of course, in the more right-wing media, there is even less interest, even though the pound has sunk to its lowest level against the dollar since 1985 — £1 yesterday bought just $1.29, a loss of 10% since the referendum, with pessimists predicting $1.16 by the end of the year — and even though, as the Guardian currently describes it, “turmoil in the UK commercial property sector prompted by the Brexit vote [is] forc[ing] fund managers to revalue their portfolios or temporarily prevent investors withdrawing their savings.”

The panic is affecting billions of pounds’ worth of property, and while I am an enthusiast for seeing the housing bubble in London and the south east brought an end, as it is the epitome of greed out of control, I worry that a systemic crash, triggered by the referendum and bringing down the economy as a whole, may be a disproportionately damaging way for it to happen, with repercussions that, as with any economic collapse, will impact most heavily on those who can least afford it.

In 2010, when the Tories failed to win an outright majority, the markets demanded a solution as quickly as possible, and a coalition government was formed within five days. Now, however, we’re being told that the country will not have a leader for another two months, leaving an unprecedented amount of time for the markets to give up on the economy. Britain’s economy is currently being held together — single-handedly, it seems — by Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England (and, ironically, an immigrant), but by September Britain could potentially face an unprecedented collapse, as there appears to be no serious support within the actual government to combat the pound’s decline, the politicians of the Leave camp having made no plan, and David Cameron having left Brexit plans in the hands of a particularly notable clown, Oliver Lewin, who has no demonstrable ability to do anything whatsoever. See the FT for more on what can be expected — beyond Letwin, that is.

I cannot express strongly enough how much the mainstream media needs to question and address its complicity in supporting the messages of the Leave campaigners, even when they were baseless propaganda, and its failure to investigate in detail almost all the issues involved in our proposed departure from the EU, and not just the obvious topics of immigration and perceptions of sovereignty. See Lord Puttnam on this, criticising the BBC’s coverage of the referendum as “constipated” and accusing broadcasters of a “criminal act” by not subjecting Boris Johnson’s claims under scrutiny, and also see the thoughts of Justin Webb of the Today programme.

As I see it, not only were the Leave camp’s lies rarely, if ever examined rigorously, but many highly important topics were never even covered, as I mentioned in an article following the result. One of the topics I discussed there was the uncertain future for Britain’s universities, and see here for a Reuters article from July 5 asking how the UK’s universities can “plug a funding gap and maintain prestige if the flood of students from across the EU slows to a trickle,” as it may well do.

Two weeks on from the referendum, and the mainstream media is now doing what it always does, but now needs to rethink urgently, which is to move on to whatever it is that is happening now and that can be dressed up as interesting. For some time now, it has been apparent to me that the maximum attention span of the mainstream media is about two weeks, however bad the news and however massive the newsworthy topic, to the extent that, as I have often joked, if the modern media were present at the start of the Second World War, they would have lost interest before the end of September 1939.

Hence my disappointment and anxiety that the true impact of Brexit, and questions about whether our national suicide is really in the national interest, is missing from the front pages of newspapers and from TV broadcasts, when we still appear to be in a disturbing new world full of almost endless uncertainty — and of a dangerous but predictable increase in racism and xenophobia — in which the UK before the morning of June 24 is absolutely not the same place as it has been since, and every certainty that existed before — regarding our rights as Europeans, as British citizens or as immigrants — is now open to debate, and every nuance of the politics of Cameron’s Britain, with its six years of austerity and its identifiable policies, however wretched they may have been, suddenly seems to be ancient history.

To many in the Leave camp, questioning the outcome of the referendum is regarded as unfair, but it must be stressed that the outcome was only advisory, and that it is now up to the government to implement it, and, as I mentioned a few days ago, in an important article for the Guardian last week, Geoffrey Robertson QC made clear where MPs’ responsibility lies. He pointed out that “‘[s]overeignty’ — a much misunderstood word in the campaign — resides in Britain with the ‘Queen in parliament’, that is with MPs alone who can make or break laws and peers who can block them. Before Brexit can be triggered, parliament must repeal the 1972 European Communities Act by which it voted to take us into the European Union — and MPs have every right, and indeed a duty if they think it best for Britain, to vote to stay.”

I also made reference to an article by law professor and former Foreign Office advisor Philip Allott, who stated that the Brexit decision may be “unlawful,” and another article explaining how solicitors at the prominent law firm Mishcon de Reya are “taking pre-emptive legal action against the government, following the EU referendum result, to try to ensure article 50 [triggering our departure from the EU] is not triggered without an act of parliament.”

In today’s Guardian, I’m glad to note, another flicker of light was provided by the news that “[t]he first legal attempt to prevent the prime minister initiating Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union is to be heard later this month,” as “[a] high court judge, Mr. Justice Cranston, has set 19 July for a preliminary hearing of [a] judicial review challenge brought on behalf of the British citizen Deir Dos Santos,” who “argues that only parliament – not the prime minister – can authorise the signing of article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which begins the UK’s formal withdrawal process.”

The Guardian article also noted that the Dos Santos claim argues that, although David Cameron claimed, in his resignation speech, that the government “is of the view that the prime minister of the day has the power under article 50 (2) of the Lisbon treaty to trigger article 50 without reference to parliament,” that decision “is ‘ultra vires’ – beyond the legitimate powers of the government – because under ‘the UK’s constitutional requirements’, notification to the European Union council of withdrawal ‘can only be given with the prior authorisation of the UK parliament.’”

I admit that I have found myself clinging to these points of view over the past two weeks, and that their general dismissal disturbs me, because I genuinely fear for the future if — when — we leave the EU: the prolonged shock to the economy, the hardening of racist sentiment, the calls for the expulsion of all those regarded as unwanted immigrants, Britain’s inevitable decline in Europe and on the world stage, a deluded minnow sinking in wealth an influence, isolating itself just when more of the opposite was needed — more cooperation, more opening doors, more movement.

If you care about these issues, do let me know. There are millions of us, across all the political parties (well, except UKIP) and we urgently need to make our voices heard.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer, film-maker and singer-songwriter (the lead singer and main songwriter for the London-based band The Four Fathers, whose debut album ‘Love and War’ and EP ‘Fighting Injustice’ are available here to download or on CD via Bandcamp). He is the co-founder of the Close Guantánamo campaign (and the Countdown to Close Guantánamo initiative, launched in January 2016), the co-director of We Stand With Shaker, which called for the release from Guantánamo of Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in the prison (finally freed on October 30, 2015), and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by the University of Chicago Press in the US, and available from Amazon, including a Kindle edition — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here — or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and The Complete Guantánamo Files, an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the Close Guantánamo campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

The Last Two Yemenis Mistakenly Identified as Members of Al-Qaeda Cell Seek Release from Guantánamo via Periodic Review Board

Last week, two more Periodic Review Boards took place at Guantánamo, bringing to 51 the number of prisoners whose ongoing imprisonment has been reviewed by the US government since the PRBs were set up in 2013 (the 52nd took place yesterday, and I’ll be writing about that soon). To date, 24 of those men have been recommended for release, 12 have had their ongoing imprisonment recommended, and 16 others are awaiting decisions. 12 other men are still awaiting reviews. For further information, see the definitive Periodic Review Board list that I wrote for the Close Guantánamo website.

Last week’s reviews were for the last two of six men seized in Karachi, Pakistan on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks — the same day as alleged 9/11 conspirator Ramzi bin al-Shibh. They were then sent to be tortured in a “black site” in Afghanistan, and were subsequently identified by the US authorities as members of an Al-Qaeda cell in Karachi. In the first of the PRBs for the six, in February, for Ayoub Ali Saleh, it was revealed that the authorities have since walked back from their claims, conceding that “it is more likely the six Yemenis were among a large pool of Yemeni fighters that senior al-Qa’ida planners considered potentially available to support future operations.”

Saleh was recommended for release in March, and a second man, Bashir al-Marwalah, was approved for release in May, after a review in April. Decisions have not yet been taken in the cases of the other two — Said Salih Said Nashir, reviewed in April, and Shawqi Awad Balzuhair, reviewed in May, but it is reasonable to expect that, unless the men in question are unwilling or unable to demonstrate contrition, and a desire to resume peaceful lives, they will all be recommended for release.

In the cases of the two men reviewed last week, I would be surprised if the board members failed to recommend their release, as both have been well-behaved prisoners in Guantánamo, and appear to have no connection to or enthusiasm for anyone involved in terrorism.

Musa’ab al-Madhwani’s Periodic Review Board

The clearest case of release is the first of the two, Musa’ab al-Madhwani, a Yemeni who is 35 or 36 years old, and who is the only one of the six to have had his habeas corpus petition considered by a US judge, back in December 2009. On that occasion, Judge Thomas Hogan reluctantly rejected the petition, although clearly with some regret.

As I explained in an article in October 2010:

[W]hen Judge Thomas F. Hogan denied his petition, he said that, although the government had “met its burden” in establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that al-Madhwani was connected to al-Qaeda, he “did not think Madhwani was dangerous.” Noting that he had been a “model prisoner” since his arrival at Guantánamo in October 2002, he explained, “There is nothing in the record now that he poses any greater threat than those detainees who have already been released.” Moreover, Judge Hogan refused to rely on any statements that al-Madhwani had made to interrogators at Guantánamo, ruling that they were “tainted by abusive interrogation techniques,” to which he was subjected in the weeks after his capture in the “Dark Prison,” although he did accept statements that al-Madhwani made during his Administrative Review Board at Guantánamo in 2005, which, he said, were not tainted because they were made years after the abuse took place. Al-Madhwani’s lawyers had argued that these statements should also have been excluded, because they were “contaminated because he was still worried about upsetting his captors,” but the judge refused to accept this argument, even though one of his attorneys, Darold W. Killmer, explained, “He was threatened that if he changed his story, he would be sent back to a place worse than at the ‘Dark Prison.’”

In that article in October 2010, I also ran through his explanation of how he came to be captured, which revealed that he had never engaged in anything resembling terrorism, and had only spent a little time at a training camp in Afghanistan:

According to al-Madhwani’s own account, he arrived in Afghanistan in August 2001, and trained briefly at al-Farouq [the main camp for Arabs in Afghanistan prior to 9/11], until it closed immediately after the attacks. After spending a few months in guest houses in Afghanistan, he made his way to Pakistan via Khost, traveling with other Arabs, Pakistanis and Afghans, and then, after trying unsuccessfully to return home via Iran, where, he said, he was “beaten and questioned” before being refused entry, spent ten months being moved around various houses in Lahore, Quetta and Karachi, waiting for an opportunity to return home that never came. Moreover, when he explained the situation in Karachi at the time of his arrest, an even less militant picture emerged. “The group I was arrested with were staying in two apartments,” he said. “One person from each apartment refused to surrender and fought the Pakistani forces sent to arrest us. I was in the group that chose to surrender.” He added that the Pakistanis were “thankful for our cooperation and surrendering without fighting.” He then explained that there were seven men in his apartment, including one who was killed, who had only been there for about five days, and that two other men shared the other apartment with a family.

I also wrote about his allegations of torture:

In his [Administrative] Review Board [a review process that began in 2005], he spoke only briefly about the “Dark Prison,” but it was easy to understand why Judge Hogan, who also spoke to him by video-link from Guantánamo, concluded that his “allegations about abusive interrogations were credible,” and, noticeably, added that they “were not challenged by government lawyers.” In 2005, when a Board Member asked him, “Are you holding anything back from the interrogators?” he replied, “That is impossible, because before I came to the prison in Guantánamo Bay I was in another prison in Afghanistan, under the ground [and] it was very dark, total dark, under torturing and without sleep. It was impossible that I could get out of there alive. I was really beaten and tortured.”

In the unclassified summary for al-Madhwani’s PRB, the US authorities seemed to accept that he is of no significance. He is described as “a low-level Yemeni militant who traveled to Afghanistan in mid-2001 and received basic training at an al-Qa’ida camp before 9/11,” and who subsequently “fled to Pakistan in late 2001 following the onset of Coalition operations and met with senior al-Qa’ida figures who tried to arrange his return to Yemen.” After dismissing past allegations that he was “part of an al-Qa’ida operational cell intended to support a future attack in Karachi,” and that he was now seen as having been “among a large pool of Yemeni fighters that senior al-Qa’ida planners considered potentially available to support future operations,” the authors of the summary stated, as al-Madhwani has always maintained, that he “was probably awaiting a chance to return to Yemen at the al-Qa’ida Karachi safe house when he was arrested.”

Turning to Guantánamo, the authorities noted that al-Madhwani “has been highly compliant with the guard force at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility since his arrival in October 2002, according to Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), committing a low number of infractions compared to other detainees.”

Regarding intelligence, the authorities stated that, “early in his detention, [he] provided information of modest value about his activities and al-Qa’ida operatives and leaders,” although they added that he “has never admitted to an ideological affiliation with al-Qa’ida,” which makes it “difficult to assess his motivations for traveling to Afghanistan.” Importantly, however, “[w]hile in detention, [he] has denounced extremism and not expressed any anti-American sentiment.”

The authorities also noted that he “does not appear to have any direct associations with at-large extremists,” adding that he “has received one letter from a former detainee suspected of reengaging in terrorist activities, but did not respond.” I must add that every time correspondence with former prisoners is mentioned in PRB summaries, I find it disturbing, as there is no way that what a former prisoner does should reflect in any meaningful way on those still held.

The summary concluded by stating that al-Madhwani “probably would prefer to be transferred to Yemen, to be close to his family, and his family appears to be financially stable and are willing to support [him] and find him employment,” although that will not happen, of course, because the entire US establishment in unwilling to repatriate any Yemenis from Guantánamo because of the security situation, and, if he is recommended for release, a third country must be found that is prepared to offer him a new home. The final notes are about his future, with the authorities stating that he has “said he wanted to have a family of his own” and to “become a farmer or an accountant.”

Below I’m cross-posting the opening statements made by his personal representative (US personnel appointed to help the prisoners prepare for their PRBs) and by one of his civilian lawyers. His representative uncovered one of the concerns expressed by the authorities in their unclassified summary — namely, what had motivated him to go to Afghanistan — by stating that his trip “was sold to him as a tremendous charity opportunity filled with adventure,” but that it turned out to be completely different — he found, instead, “a highly suspicious organization that confiscated his passport and tickets upon arrival.”

The representative also noted how al-Madhwani has “never held extremist views or any desire to harm Americans,” and how, “[a]s a result, it is no surprise he has been highly compliant as a detainee and very respectful with detention staff,” adding ‘During his entire time at Guantánamo, Musab has denounced extremism and only desires release to his family.”

His lawyer, Patricia Bronte, a civil rights attorney in Chicago, who has known him for nearly ten years, agreed, painting a portrait of a young man known for “his candor, generosity, and sense of humor,” who “is no longer the shy, gullible youth whom two men convinced to run away from home and go to Afghanistan.” She described his close-knit and supportive family, and noted his dedication to furthering his education at Guantánamo, to prepare for a working life on his release. She also noted how he has “never held extremist views or any desire to harm Americans.”

Periodic Review Board, 28 June 2016

Musab Omar Ali Al-Mudwani, ISN 839

Personal Representative Statement

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the board. I am the Personal Representative for ISN 839. Thank you for the opportunity to present the case for Musab Omar Ali Al-Mudwani.

At a very young age, Musab was recruited in Yemen to support the movement in Afghanistan. The trip was sold to him as a tremendous charity opportunity filled with adventure. Additionally, Musab perceived it to carry very little commitment as he already had a return plane ticket for the following month. However, when he arrived in Afghanistan he discovered vastly different expectations and a highly suspicious organization that confiscated his passport and tickets upon arrival. New recruit movements were very restricted and the oppression forced him and others to avoid asking questions.

Musab quickly realized his mistake, but changing his situation became extremely difficult. He desperately wished to return home, but the situation was growing precarious. Finally, coalition attacks presented the opportunity to flee back to Yemen, but this proved to be very difficult as well and he never made it.

Musab never held extremist views or any desire to harm Americans. As a result, it is no surprise he has been highly compliant as a detainee and very respectful with detention staff. During his entire time at Guantánamo, Musab has denounced extremism and only desires release to his family. Although his parents are gone, he intends to make up for the pain he has caused his brothers and sister through leading an entirely peaceful life. Musab’s brothers have pledged to support him financially as long as necessary. However, his plan is to find a wife and have children to which he intends to support as an accountant. He has pursued life skills training to help him attain this career and has produced many practice accountant documents in preparation for the future (included in the submissions).

I am confident Musab is honest in his intentions after Guantánamo because of his peaceful and compliant past. His time at Guantánamo has greatly expanded his perspective on the world and helped him develop more sound judgment. I firmly believe he does not represent a continued significant threat to the United States of America or its allies. Finally,he has skills to support himself in a peaceful existence.

Musab is open to transfer to any country, but would prefer an Arab speaking nation where he can more easily pursue a career and start a family. I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Periodic Review Board, 28 June 2016

Musab Omar Ali Al-Mudwani, ISN 839

Personal Counsel Statement

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, thank you for the opportunity to present this statement in support of my client, Musa’ab al Madhwani, ISN 839. I know Musa’ab well, and I am proud to represent him before this Board. I first met Musa’ab in January 2007. He remains the honest, polite, fine young man I met almost a decade ago. Shortly after our first meeting, rumors began to circulate around the camp that the detainees might no longer be able to meet with their lawyers. Musa’ ab wrote me a beautiful letter saying:

If the government severs communications between us, and we are not able to ever meet, I want to say to you: Thank you for standing by me in this ordeal of mine … I will never forget compassionate Patricia who gave me hope and made me realize that there is still goodness in this nation.

In the decade since that letter, I have met and spoken with Musa’ab scores of times. Musa’ab has never lost his appreciation for the goodness of America and Americans.

Musa’ab has always been truthful, even when the truth is inconvenient or unflattering. From our first meeting, Musa’ab told me (with considerable embarrassment) how two men persuaded him to run away from home and travel to Afghanistan in the summer of 2001. He also told me about the many months he spent as a refugee, travelling through Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran in search of a way to get home to Yemen. In 2009, I sat down and mapped out his travels, including the length of time Musa’ab said he stayed in each place. I consulted independent documentation that Musa’ab could not have seen or known about. Somewhat to my surprise, I was able to confirm Musa’ab’s account of his travels, right down to the day.

Musa’ab has always been more interested in helping other people than in dwelling on his own problems. I remember being nervous about telling Musa’ab of a setback in his habeas case. But Musa’ab took the setback in stride and then spent the rest of our meeting comforting me. Recently, Musa’ab heard about some problems in my family. He wrote me a long letter to cheer me up, then apologized that his circumstances prevented him from giving me more than just moral support.

Many aspects of Musa’ab’s character have remained constant throughout the decade I have known him, including his candor, generosity, and sense of humor. But some things have changed — dramatically and for the better. Musa’ab is no longer the shy, gullible youth whom two men convinced to run away from home and go to Afghanistan. After hearing Musa’ab testify over the course of two days in 2009, federal Judge Thomas Hogan agreed with the government’s internal assessment of Musa’ab as a young, na’ive, unemployed Yemeni who posed no danger to the United States:

The record reflects that [Musa’ab] was, at best, a low-level al-Qaida figure. It does not appear he even finished his weapons training. There is no evidence that he fired a weapon in battle or was on the front lines. There is also no evidence that he planned, participated in, or knew of any terrorist plots. Classified documents in the record confirm the Court’s assessment. As does the fact that he appears to have been a model prisoner during his seven years of detention. The Court fails to see how, based on the record, [Musa’ab] poses any greater threat than the dozens o f detainees who recently have been transferred or cleared for transfer. (Anam v. Obama, 696 F. Supp. 2d I, 16 (D.D.C. 2010)).

I have watched Musa’ab grow from a naive, gullible youth into a confident, independent man. Musa’ab once was afraid of being alone in the dark, but now he reaches out to calm his brothers’ fears and resolve their disputes. Instead of being a follower, swayed by peer pressure and the strong personalities around him, Musa’ab now thinks and acts independently, according to his own core beliefs.

Musa’ab has also taken advantage of the opportunities available to him here to prepare himself for life outside of Guantánamo. Before leaving home, Musa’ab gained some business experience by helping out in his father’s pharmacies. Here, Musa’ab has built on that experience by learning about computers and studying accounting and business skills with another detainee who has significant business training and experience. Musa’ab has applied himself diligently to these studies, and he asked me to bring him a book on how to use the Excel computer program. These accounting and general business skills will assist Musa’ab in finding employment and making the transition to civilian life.

Over the years I have spoken by phone with Musa’ab’s family. This loving and supportive family has long since forgiven Musa’ab for his youthful error in running away from home. Unfortunately, both of Musa’ab’s parents died while he has been at Guantánamo. The family remains close, and Musa’ab’s sister and brothers have maintained contact with Musa’ab through letters and phone calls. Musa’ab’s siblings have made detailed plans to support him in the event the Board decides he can be released or transferred. They understand that if allowed to leave, he will likely be going to a country other than Yemen. Fortunately, the family has the resources to support Musa’ab in his transition to civilian life, to provide him a job and home and marriage prospects, and to travel to be with Musa’ab, regardless of where he is transferred. I should note that neither I nor Musa’ab’s other lawyers ever requested or received information in 2014 from Musa’ab’s family regarding their financial circumstances. The first time we asked for that information was this year, in preparation for this hearing. The family is eager to give Musa’ab the emotional and financial support he will need in transitioning from detention to peaceful family life. Musa’ab’s four siblings and his brother-in-aw have submitted statements in support of Musa’ab’s case, as have my co-counsel Darold Killmer and Mari Newman, who met personally with Musa’ab’ s family in Yemen.

Darold, Mari, and I are also eager to provide support and assistance to Musa’ab, whether he is transferred to Yemen or some other country. If l could, I would invite Musa’ab to come and live with my family. Since that is not possible, l hope to do the next best thing and visit him wherever he is living. We have all promised to attend Musa’ab’s wedding, regardless of where it takes place. The human rights group Reprieve has significant experience in helping detainees transition to civilian life, and Reprieve has offered to share its advice, contacts, best practices, and other resources to help us provide support to Musa’ab if he is transferred to a country other than his homeland. We are committed to supporting his transition to a peaceful and productive life outside of Guantánamo. I would be happy to answer any questions the Board may have.

Hayil al-Maythali’s Periodic Review Board

The second prisoner to face a Periodic Review Board last week was Hayil al-Maythali aka Hail al-Maythali or Hayil al-Mithali (ISN 840), a 38- or 39-year old Yemeni.

As I explained in an article in October 2010:

In Guantánamo, al-Maythali stated that he went to Afghanistan in November 2000 to “fight in the jihad,” and admitted ferrying supplies on the back lines near Kabul, but he added that he was only on the front lines for a week because he had no military experience. He denied allegations that he trained at al-Farouq, and explained that these allegations had only arisen because of his torture in the “Dark Prison,” where, he said, “there was very bad torture conducted on people,” including himself, which was “so bad that he knew by making up and agreeing to the training it would stop the torture.” He added that “his testicles were disfigured to the point where they cannot be repaired.” Like Ayoub Saleh, Shawki Balzuhair and Musa’ab al-Madhwani, he was only captured after returning to Pakistan following an abortive attempt to return home via Iran.

In the unclassified summary for his PRB, the US authorities were rather more forceful abut his role, suggesting that he was “an extremist fighter who associated with senior al-Qa’ida members” — although it was also noted that he “probably did not play a major role in the attack plotting in Karachi.”

The authorities added, “During 2000 and 2001, he trained with al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan,” and “provided support to frontline fighters against the Northern Alliance.” It was also claimed that he “probably acted briefly as a guard at Usama bin Ladin’s compound in Kandahar,” and “also may have been a bodyguard to Bin Ladin,” although this latter is a very dubious allegation, made by Sharqawi Abdu Ali al-Hajj (ISN 1457), a Yemeni who is still held, and whose statements were disregarded by a judge back in 2010 because of the torture to which he was subjected.

Al-Maythali’s summary also dismissed previous claims about the “Karachi Six,” noting that, “[b]ased on a review of all available reporting, we judge that this label more accurately reflects the common circumstances of their arrest and that it is more likely the six Yemenis were elements of a large pool of Yemeni fighters that senior al-Qa’ida planners considered potentially available to support future operations.” As with Musa’ab al-Madhwani, the authorities added that al-Maythali “was probably awaiting a chance to return to Yemen when he was arrested at the Karachi safehouse.”

At Guantánamo, it was noted, al-Maythali “has been mostly compliant with the guard force and committed a low number of infractions relative to other detainees.” On  intelligence, it was added that he ”has provided little information of value after his initial interviews,” and, as interpreted by the authorities, “has probably sought to conceal his past involvement in terrorist activities,” although that may be nothing more than wishful thinking. It was also noted that he “acts as a spokesperson for the other detainees on his cell block and has provided interrogators with information about camp dynamics and other detainees’ noncompliance,’ cooperation, as I see it, that might help with a recommendation for his release.

The authorities added that he “probably retains anti-American views and probably is at least sympathetic toward extremist groups, although he has been guarded in conveying his views on extremism and violence,” although both these claims are quite vague, as is clear for the related use of the word “probably.”

It was also noted that he “has demonstrated conservative Islamic beliefs and would probably prefer to be transferred to a Muslim country, particularly Yemen or Saudi Arabia, if released,” and also that “has maintained contact with his family, most of whom reside in Sanaa,” Yemen’s capital. However, if his release was to be recommended, a third country would need to be found, because of the ongoing ban on repatriating any Yemenis. This may be helpful because, although those compiling the summary assessed that he |has no close associations with terrorists outside of Guantánamo,” the added that “he and his family possibly know members of al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) who would be well-placed to help [him] reengage in terrorism if he returned to Yemen.” It was also noted that he “also probably has a close relationship with Maha El-Samnah, the mother of a former Guantánamo detainee,” although I failed to see how a relationship with a former prisoner’s mother is supposed to indicate any sort of danger.

Below I’m cross-posting the opening statements made by his personal representative and his attorney, Jennifer Cowan. The representative spoke of how he is “always extremely polite and cooperative,” and “has grown substantially as a person” during his imprisonment, dedicating himself to learning and recognizing the mistakes he made in his past. Cowan spoke candidly about how his “detention has been difficult for him and he has been angry about his treatment at Guantánamo,” but how, with the passage of time, “he regrets the choices that he made before he was captured and detained at Guantánamo, and has become “more mature, open-minded, self-reflective and focused on the future.” She also spoke about his closeness to his family, the care he has shown towards his fellow prisoners, and his desire to find productive work if released.

Periodic Review Board, 30 June 2016

Hail Aziz Ahmed Al-Maythali, ISN 840

Personal Representative Opening Statement

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the Board. I am the Personal Representative for ISN 840. I will be assisting Mr. Hayil Aziz Ahmed al-Mithali with his PRB this morning.

Hayil has attended all of our meetings and is always extremely polite and cooperative. Every time I see him he is smiling and he never hesitates to answer any question I may have. While here at GTMO, he has learned English from other detainees as well as carpentry and cooking and he has grown substantially as a person. He recognizes that he made bad decisions in the past and he has no interest in repeating these mistakes. Hayil realizes that it was a mistake to go someplace else and fight for a cause that was not his. He does not blame America for his current situation, he blames himself for his actions.

His family is more than ready and willing, and is quite capable of, providing whatever support is needed for Hayil. They have already given him a share in their marketing and advertising business and hope that with his English skills he can help them with importing Goods from China.

He is interested in working in trade if he is transferred, but he would also like to continue his education, as he feels education is very important. When discussing the qualities he prefers in a wife, he lists “educated” at the top, even before “beautiful.” Hayil has encouraged all of his siblings in their education, including his older sister. Even though it is traditional for the female to drop out of school when she is married, he insisted that his sister continue her education, for which she is very grateful.

He would prefer an Arabic speaking country, but does not mind going to any country. It would just take a little longer to integrate, but he is more than willing to put in every effort to succeed. He also welcomes any kind of rehabilitation or reintegration program that might be available.

Based upon my time with Hayil and the support of both his family and his Personal Counsel, I believe that he is sincere in his desire to lead a peaceful life and obtain an honest job and he has the support and dedication that will make this possible. I honestly do not believe that Hayil represents a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States of America.

Thank you for your time and attention. I am happy to answer any questions you may have throughout these proceedings.

Opening Statement of Jennifer R. Cowan

Private Counsel for Hail Aziz Ahmed Al-Maythali (ISN 840)

Good morning. I am Jennifer Cowan of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, counsel for Hayil al-Mithali. For the past eleven years, I have represented Hayil and have gotten to know him well through numerous conversations and meetings. I strongly believe that Hayil’s detention is not necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security oft he United States and I urge the PRB to approve him for transfer.

Hayil was young when he came to Guantanamo and I will be candid in recognizing that at times, Hayil’s detention has been difficult for him and he has been angry about his treatment at Guantánamo. But I think that with many years to consider his actions, he regrets the choices that he made before he was captured and detained at Guantánamo. In addition, during the past eleven years, and especially in recent years,I have witnessed him become more mature, open-minded, self-reflective and focused on the future.

I would like to give you one example of a way in which Hayil has matured during his time at Guantánamo. When I first met Hayil, he was very uncomfortable with the idea of a female lawyer representing him and very uncomfortable, generally, with the idea of speaking to a woman who was not a member of his family. In those first years, at his request, I covered my hair during our meetings and we would not shake hands. I would sit toward the back of the meeting room while a male interpreter and my male colleagues sat at the table. Hayil would not speak directly to me and instead, spoke only to the men in the room.

Overtime,these limitations disappeared. When I meet with Hayil now, I do not cover my hair. We shake hands warmly, and we sit at the table together and engage in direct conversation, now partially without interpretation, due to his remarkable progress in learning English. Our conversations cover many topics — Hayil is smart and curious and is interested in hearing my perspective on issues and interested in better understanding the views of others.

On many occasions, Hayil and I have talked about his hopes for his life after he is released from Guantánamo. Those hopes will be familiar to many people. Most of all, he wants to marry and start a family of his own. As you can see from the letters of support written for the PRB, Hayil is very close with his parents, his siblings, and his nieces and nephews. He misses them terribly and he worries about them, and he looks forward to seeing them and speaking with them during videoconferences. On many occasions, he has expressed to me his regret at not being part of their lives because of his detention at Guantánamo, especially as his siblings and nieces and nephews grow up and he has expressed his regret that he has not had children of his own who could grow up with their cousins. Hayil very much wants to make up for lost time as quickly as possible and to become a father. He frequently asks about my children and what new experiences they have had, and at each meeting, Hayil reiterates his invitation for me and my family to attend his wedding, whenever and wherever that may be.

Hayil is clear-eyed about the work that he will need to do if he is released from Guantánamo. He has taken advantage of the educational opportunities available to detainees at Guantánamo but recognizes that he will need to complete additional training and/or education in order to have the skills necessary to support himself and his family, and he also understands that he may need to learn a new language. He is fully committed to taking the necessary steps and doing the work to create a new life for himself. He is open to any type of training and any type of job, but he is particularly interested in running a small business because his family has a small business in Yemen and they can provide guidance for that endeavor.

As you can see from the letters submitted to the PRB, Hayil’s family will support him in every way possible if he is released from Guantanamo. lf he were to return to Yemen, he would be provided with a home and partial ownership of his family’s business. However, Hayil’s family recognizes that even if he is released from Guantánamo, he is unlikely to be transferred to Yemen and therefore, they are prepared to support him wherever he settles, to assist him in finding a wife, and to help prepare him to start a job or a business so that he can support his family. I am also personally committed to providing whatever assistance I can to help Hayil establish himself if he is released from Guantánamo, though the nature of that support will depend in large part on the country to which he is transferred.

In their letters to the PRB, members of Hayil’s family and community provide examples of specific instances in which Hayil provided assistance and support to them. These stories are consistent with my knowledge of Hayil’s activities at Guantánamo. In my conversations with him, Hayil has always expressed concern and been protective of other detainees at Guantánamo. One of my other clients here was seriously ill and when they were housed together, Hayil would assist him in negotiating life at Guantánamo and when they were not housed together, Hayil would regularly ask me about how my client was feeling and ask me to convey his concern and best wishes. I understand that Hayil has also taken a similar interest in and provided assistance to other detainees who needed his help and on occasion, has acted as liaison between detainees and the guards in the detention facility.

I am confident that if Hayil is released from Guantánamo, he will use his intelligence and focus, his determination and fortitude, and his caring and thoughtfulness to create a new life for himself and become a productive and well-integrated member of whatever community he settles in. I urge the PRB to clear Hayil for release so that he can take the lessons he has learned at Guantánamo and use them to start a new chapter in his life.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer, film-maker and singer-songwriter (the lead singer and main songwriter for the London-based band The Four Fathers, whose debut album ‘Love and War’ and EP ‘Fighting Injustice’ are available here to download or on CD via Bandcamp). He is the co-founder of the Close Guantánamo campaign (and the Countdown to Close Guantánamo initiative, launched in January 2016), the co-director of We Stand With Shaker, which called for the release from Guantánamo of Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in the prison (finally freed on October 30, 2015), and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by the University of Chicago Press in the US, and available from Amazon, including a Kindle edition — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here — or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and The Complete Guantánamo Files, an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the Close Guantánamo campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

Fighting Injustice: Andy Worthington’s Band The Four Fathers Release New EP Including Reworked ‘Song for Shaker Aamer’

Today, London-based band The Four Fathers release the Fighting Injustice EP online, via Bandcamp, in two versions: one for the UK and one for the US.

The EP features three reworked songs from the band’s debut album, ‘Love and War’, released last summer, written by lead singer Andy Worthington, a journalist and human rights and social justice activist, who has spent the last ten years focusing primarily on the US prison at Guantánamo Bay Cuba.

Please feel free to listen to the EPs below — and please support us by buying them, or by buying individual tracks, if you like them. Later this month we will be in the studio making the first recordings for our second album, to be released in 2017.

Fighting Injustice EP (UK version) by The Four Fathers

Fighting Injustice EP (US version) by The Four Fathers

The EP’s headline song, ‘Fighting Injustice’, is a live favourite, an anthemic roots reggae song opposing austerity and greed, remixed for the EP and with a newly recorded guitar part by Richard Clare.

The EP also features a reworked version of ‘Song for Shaker Aamer’, the band’s best-known song. Originally recorded in 2014, and featured in the campaign video for the We Stand With Shaker campaign that Andy launched with the activist Joanne McInnes to secure the release from Guantánamo of Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in the prison, Andy rewrote the lyrics following Shaker’s release last October, and recorded the new lyrics with Richard on backing vocals at the EP recording session in May.

The final reworked song is ‘Tory Bullshit Blues’, the band’s galloping rock and roll cry for socialism as an alternative to the iniquities of 21st century capitalism, with its roots in the Thatcher years, and with its apposite commentary — after the EU referendum last week — on the misplaced scapegoating of immigrants for the crimes committed by the bankers who crashed the global economy in 2008.

For the US version of the Fighting Injustice EP, Andy rewrote some of the lyrics for ‘Tory Bullshit Blues’ to reflect the US political situation, replacing Margaret Thatcher with Ronald Reagan, and Nigel Farage with Donald Trump, and renaming the song ‘Neo-Liberal Bullshit Blues.’

The EPs cost £2.50 ($3.25) and can be downloaded via Bandcamp. The tracks are also available individually for £1 ($1.30).

For further information, or to book The Four Fathers, please contact the band via Andy Worthington.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer, film-maker and singer-songwriter (the lead singer and main songwriter for the London-based band The Four Fathers, whose debut album ‘Love and War’ and EP ‘Fighting Injustice’ are available here to download or on CD via Bandcamp). He is the co-founder of the Close Guantánamo campaign (and the Countdown to Close Guantánamo initiative, launched in January 2016), the co-director of We Stand With Shaker, which called for the release from Guantánamo of Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in the prison (finally freed on October 30, 2015), and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by the University of Chicago Press in the US, and available from Amazon, including a Kindle edition — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here — or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and The Complete Guantánamo Files, an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the Close Guantánamo campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.